NAQWAN WATSON, 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.
Watson appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to withdraw his plea. The court affirmed the denial of the withdrawal motion but remanded for correction of an illegal sentence on count II, which exceeded statutory limits for a third-degree felony.
The court held that the prior unsworn motion should have been dismissed and did not bar the instant motion as successive. However, the court affirmed the denial of the withdrawal motion because Watson failed to demonstrate prejudice despite not being informed of the ten-year mandatory minimum, given his knowledge that the court could sentence him to life imprisonment. The court remanded for correction of the illegal twenty-year sentence on count II.
[1] A Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion that is unsworn should be dismissed.
[2] A Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion filed within thirty days after sentencing may be considered a Rule 3.170(i) motion to withdraw a plea, which does not ba…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Where, under the totality of the circumstances, no objectively reasonable probability of prejudice exists, the claim may be summarily denied.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary denial of Rule 3.850 motions based on lack of demonstrated prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson entered a plea and was sentenced on multiple counts, including count I (home invasion robbery with actual possession of a firearm) and count II…
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 Motion To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals an order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, seeking to withdraw his plea. The state responded in the circuit court that the defendant’s prior rule 3.850 motion, which raised other grounds, should bar the instant motion as successive. We disagree with the state because the prior motion, filed through counsel, was unsworn, and thus, as a rule 3.850 motion, it should have been dismissed. Furthermore, because the prior motion was filed within thirty days after the defendant’s sentencing, it could have been considered as a rule 3.170(i) motion to withdraw his plea, which would not bar a subsequent rule 3.850 motion. Under the circumstances, we conclude the defendant’s filing of the instant motion did not constitute an abuse of procedure.
Nevertheless, we affirm the denial of the instant motion to the extent it sought to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. We recognize the record does not refute the defendant’s claim that he was not informed by his counsel or the *206court that one of his charges — count I, home invasion robbery with actual possession of a firearm — carried a ten-year mandatory minimum term. However, the defendant has not demonstrated he was prejudiced, given his expressed understanding at the time he entered his plea that the court could sentence him to up to life in prison on that count. See Capalbo v. State, 73 So.3d 838, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Where, under the totality of the circumstances, no objectively reasonable probability of prejudice exists, the claim may be summarily denied.”). As for the defendant’s claim that he was coerced to plead, the record refutes that claim.
Further, the state candidly pointed out in the circuit court that the defendant should be resentenced for count II, grand theft, a third degree felony for which he had been sentenced to twenty years — an illegal sentence. The defendant’s brief now seeks a correction of that sentence. Accordingly, we direct the circuit court on remand to impose a legal sentence for count II.
Affirmed, but remanded for con~ection of sentence.
POLEN, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawhon-Griffis v. State, 222 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…g the motion as successive because appellant’s previous Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 motion to withdraw her plea, which was untimely, should have been dismissed without prejudice to filing a proper rule 3.850 motion. See Watson v. State, 111 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider appellant’s second motion on the merits. Reversed and remanded. Warner, Gross and Levine, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Capalbo v. State, 73 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)