SHAUN ALMODOVAR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Almodovar appeals the summary denial of his motion for enforcement of a plea agreement, claiming he was promised concurrent and coterminous sentencing but the trial court imposed consecutive sentences. The appellate court reversed because the trial court denied the facially insufficient motion on the merits without attaching supporting documents that would conclusively refute the claim.
The court reversed and remanded because the postconviction court improperly denied the motion on the merits without attaching documents that would conclusively refute the claim. The court must either dismiss the motion as facially insufficient and allow amendment, or if a properly sworn amended motion is filed, attach sufficient record excerpts to its order to refute the claim.
[1] A trial court's order denying a motion for credit for time served must be reversed on appeal if the record attached to the order does not conclusively demonstrate that th…
[2] When a trial court denies a motion for credit for time served without attaching portions of the record that refute the defendant's claim, the appellate court must reverse…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the only avenue for enforcement of a plea agreement is through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850”
Establishes the exclusive procedural mechanism for challenging alleged plea agreement violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlmodovar entered a negotiated plea to several offenses and received a three-year minimum mandatory sentence. He claims the sentence was supposed to r…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Shaun Amodovar appeals from the summary denial of his “motion for enforcement *899of plea contract.” Because the postconviction court denied this facially insufficient motion on the merits without attaching documents to its order that would conclusively refute the claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Mr. Almodovar alleged that he entered a negotiated plea to several offenses and was sentenced to a three-year minimum mandatory sentence that he claims was to be served both concurrently and coterminously with a previously imposed four-year sentence on an Okeechobee County offense. The minimal record attached to his motion, consisting of the Acknowledgment and Waiver of Rights form, supports that allegation. He contends that the court has violated the agreement. The postconviction court denied the motion on the merits in a brief order, unaccompanied by attachments, and found from a review of the court file, transcript, and the Acknowledgment and Waiver of Rights form that it was not the intention of the court that Mr. Almodovar's sentence run coterminous with his sentence from Okeechobee County-
This court has observed on several occasions that the only avenue for enforcement of a plea agreement is through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 51 So.3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Hettick v. State, 977 So.2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Had Mr. Almo-dovar’s motion been properly sworn, the postconviction court could have considered it as a timely rule 3.850 motion. See Pifer v. State, 8 So.3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Since it was not sworn, however, we must reverse the postconviction court’s decision on the merits and remand for the court to dismiss the motion with leave for Mr. Al-modovar to file a facially sufficient claim within thirty days of the date of its order. See Sweet v. State, 987 So.2d 747, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting that although the defendant was “only trying to correct his sentence, withdrawal of his plea is a potential consequence”).
In the event that Mr. Almodovar timely files an amended facially sufficient motion and the court again denies the claim, the court must attach sufficient record excerpts to its order to refute the claim, including — at a minimum — the judgment and sentencing documents, the written plea agreement, and the transcript of the plea hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Almodovar v. State, 74 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…nce from Okeechobee County and that the court imposed a sentence in violation of that agreement. Almodovar previously brought this claim as a “motion for enforcement of plea contract” which was denied by the postconviction court. Almodovar v. State, 56 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). On appeal, this court observed that the only avenue for enforcement of a plea agreement is rule 3.850 and remanded for the postconviction court to dismiss the motion with leave for Almodovar to file a properly sworn motion within…
-
Williams v. State, 113 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…fender does not actually exist). However, this court has held that because there is no separate postconviction procedure whereby a defendant may seek to enforce a plea agreement, such a claim must be filed pursuant to rule 3.850. Almodovar v. State, 56 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Sweet v. State, 987 So. 2d 747, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Because Williams’ motion was properly sworn to and was filed within the time limitations of rule 3.850, the postconviction court should have treated it as a motion file…
-
O'Hearn v. State, 67 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…entences for both cases were imposed to run coterminously, but the sentence did not so provide, then his remedy would be to file a sworn rule 3.850 motion to enforce the plea agreement, or to withdraw the plea as involuntary. See Almodovar v. State, 56 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Because the instant appeal was pending when the two-year time period for filing a timely rule 3.850 motion expired, Defendant, if he chooses to do so, shall have thirty days from the issuance of the mandate in this ease within w…
Authorities Cited
- Sweet v. State, 987 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Hettick v. State, 977 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Williams v. State, 51 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)