ANTONIO HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2011-02-02
No. 4D09-3909
TAYLOR, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
51 So. 3d 1283 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2011) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that a defendant's claim regarding counsel's alleged misrepresentation about sealing or expunging a record warrants an evidentiary hearing.


Facts & Procedural History

Antonio Hall appealed the summary denial of his motion to vacate his plea, alleging his counsel misrepresented his eligibility for record sealing or e…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Hall appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We reverse in part.

*1284Hall entered a plea in August 2007. Within two months he moved to vacate the plea. One of his claims concerns counsel’s representation that if Hall pleaded, his record would be sealed or expunged. Hall alleges that after he entered into the plea he received a letter from counsel advising that due to the nature of the charges he was not eligible to have his record sealed. Hall alleges if properly advised, he would have proceeded to trial.

We reverse and remand for further review of this claim. See Marshall v. State, 983 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In doing so, we note that this is not a case involving the use of the conviction to enhance a sentence, nor is it a situation where the movant waited for any adverse consequence associated with counsel’s alleged advice. See State v. Dickey, 928 So.2d 1193 (Fla.2006); Phillips v. State, 960 So.2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order summarily denying the defendant’s claim for post-conviction relief is reversed as to this point, and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing thereon. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the other ground raised in defendant’s motion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Hernandez v. State, 204 So. 3d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
    …should have granted an evidentiary hearing. Ultimately, on review, we conclude that the trial court should have granted such a hearing and permitted Appellant the opportunity to develop his argument that his plea was involuntary. See Hall v. State, 51 So. 3d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (remanding for evidentiary hearing on basis of post-conviction claim that counsel misrepresented that if defendant accepted the plea, his record would be sealed or expunged); Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA…
  • Jackson v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw