MAURICE LANDELL, 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.
Maurice Landell appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which the trial court had dismissed as moot. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court improperly denied the motion summarily without adequate rationale or record support, and that the motion was premature because it was filed while a motion to withdraw plea was still pending.
The court reversed the summary denial, finding the motion was premature because it was filed while a Rule 3.170(1) motion to vacate plea was pending and before judgment became final. Additionally, even if timely, the summary denial was improper because the trial court failed to state adequate rationale for denying issues not addressed at the plea withdrawal hearing or attach record portions refuting the claims, as required by precedent.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is premature if filed while a motion to withdraw a plea is pending and before the judgment has become final.
[2] A timely motion to withdraw a plea delays the rendition of a defendant's judgment and sentence until the trial court files a signed, written order disposing of the motion…
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“A timely motion to withdraw plea delays rendition of a defendant's judgment and sentence until the trial court files a signed, written order disposing of the motion.”
Establishes that a pending motion to withdraw plea makes a post-conviction relief motion premature
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLandell pled no contest to trafficking in cocaine and other drug-related charges in one case, and admitted to a violation of probation in another case…
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 Summary Denial Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Maurice Landell appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the motion as moot. We reverse.
In one ease (“the drug case”), Landell pled no contest to trafficking in cocaine; possession of cocaine, cannabis, and drug paraphernalia; and driving without a license. At the same time, he entered a plea admitting a violation of probation on a charge of exploiting the elderly in another case.1 He was sentenced on both cases the same day he entered his pleas. The next day he filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea in the drug case.2 Approximately one month later, he filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief in the drug case raising thirteen claims, including: his plea was involuntary, the prosecution failed to disclose favorable evidence, the convictions violated double jeopardy, ineffective assistance of counsel, and newly discovered evidence.3 The trial court appointed conflict-free counsel for Landell.4 On December 18, 2008, approximately one month after the motion for post-conviction relief was filed, two weeks after the appointment of counsel, and prior to any hearing on the motion to vacate the plea, the trial court entered a one-page order summarily denying the motion for post-conviction relief, stating:
The issues raised in Defendant’s post conviction relief pleadings are related to Defendant’s plea. Having considered the defendant’s motions, the court file, applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, this Court finds as follows:
Defendant is not entitled to the relief requested. On October 15, 2009, Defendant filed a pro se Motion to Withdraw Plea. On December 3, 2009, counsel was appointed to Defendant and a hearing was set on January 13, 2010 to hear Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that for the above-stated reasons Defendant’s motion is DENIED as being MOOT.
It does not appear the motion was denied as being legally insufficient, and no copies of record documents were attached to refute any of the claims.
On March 25, 2010, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea. A review of the transcript clearly shows that several of the issues raised in the motion for post-conviction relief were not addressed at the hearing.
We first observe that the motion was premature because it was filed while a Rule 3.170(1) motion to vacate plea was pending and before the judgment had become final. “A timely motion to withdraw plea delays rendition of a defendant’s judgment and sentence until the trial court files a signed, written order disposing of the motion.” Clemons v. State, 3 So.3d 364, 365-366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). It is *415improper to consider a Rule 3.850 motion before the underlying judgment is final. Camon v. State, 57 So.3d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
Even if it had been proper for the trial court to consider the motion, “[a] summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief will be affirmed only when the trial court either states ‘its rationale in the order denying relief or attaches portions of the record that would refute the claims.’ ” Torres v. State, 9 So.3d 746, 747-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Nixon v. State, 932 So.2d 1009, 1018 (Fla. 2006)) (alteration omitted). In this case, the only rationale for summarily denying the motion was that it was moot. However, the motion raised issues that were not decided at the hearing on the Rule 3.170(() motion. The trial court did not give a rationale for denying those issues not previously raised, or attach portions of the record refuting those claims.
Reversed and remanded.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bertran Wilson v. State, 128 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…R. App. P. 9.020(i)(l). Therefore, Wilson’s conviction and sentence have not yet become final, the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion has not yet begun to run, and the rule 3.850 motion should have been dismissed as premature. See Landell v. State, 88 So. 3d 413, 414-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Haber v. State, 961 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Wilson’s premature rule 3.850 motion and remand for the trial court to dismiss it and to rule on his timely rule 3.170(£) moti…
-
Patterson v. State, 98 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion in its entirety without either explanation or attachment of any portions of the record refuting the claims. This was error. See Landell v. State, 88 So. 3d 413, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (under rule 3.850(d), Fla. R.Crim. P., order summarily denying relief without response by State must either state its rationale in the order or attach portions of the record refuting the claims raised); accord Holley v. Stat…
Authorities Cited
- Nixon v. State, 932 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2006)
- Clemons v. State, 3 So. 3d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Torres v. State, 9 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Camon v. State, 57 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)