TOMMY BURNS, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for postconviction relief based on untimeliness and insufficient attachments.
Appellant claimed his trial counsel misadvised him that his sentences would run concurrently, leading to an involuntary plea. The Department of Correc…
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 Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
. Tommy. Burns appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule-of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Burns claims that trial counsel affirmatively misadvised him that the sentences-for his two convictions would 'run concurrently, however, the Department of Corrections is requiring he serve the sentences consecutively. ' He alleges that his -plea was therefore not voluntary and that he would not have entered- it but for counsel’s misadvice.
The trial court ruled that Burns’s motion was untimely filed. The State properly concedes this ruling was erroneous. Additionally, the sentencing orders attached to the trial judge’s order do not refute the allegations raised.
Burns was sentenced in the two cases on separate days. The trial judge attached the sentencing orders from both cases. The trial court1 specified in the first case that the sentence was to- run- concurrently to any and all active sentences. The second case, which is the subject of this appeal, does not designate how the sentence was to be served. As a result, pursuant to section 921.16, Florida.Statutes (2012), the sentence is to be served consecutively. While the attachments might reflect the trial judge’s intent, it does not address the issue of counsel’s alleged misadvice.
We reverse and remand for the trial court to. either attach portions of the record refuting Burns’s allegations or in the alternative, hold an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur: