CHARLIE PAUL, 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.
Charlie Paul appealed the denial of his petition to vacate his guilty plea and sentence for forgery convictions, claiming he was promised concurrent sentences with a pending robbery conviction. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court summarily denied relief without a formal hearing and the record was unclear regarding which sentences were actually being served.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the petition without a formal hearing. The case was remanded to determine whether Paul is actually serving the robbery sentence; if he is, the petition should be denied, but if not or if the forgery sentences exceed the robbery sentence, he should receive a full formal hearing.
“it appears that the trial judge erred in summarily denying the relief sought by the appellant”
Establishes that the summary denial without hearing was reversible error
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul pleaded guilty to four forgery informations, allegedly upon promises from the State attorney and public defender that any sentences would run con…
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 Vacating Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a denial of a petition to vacate judgment and sentence, filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The allegations of the petition are that the appellant pleaded guilty to four informations relating to forgery, upon the inducement of the attorney for the State and the public defender and upon their promises that any sentences imposed because of the pleas of guilty to the forgery matters would run concurrently to a sentence imposed on a robbery conviction, in a cause then pending under Case No. 62—5386. The petition was denied without a formal hearing and it is apparent, from this record, that there was some confusion as to the several sentences imposed upon the appellant.
Therefore, from the record before us, it appears that the trial judge erred in summarily denying the relief sought by the appellant, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the appellant is in fact *780serving a sentence under the aforementioned robbery conviction. If he is, the relief sought by the instant petition should be denied under the authority of McCormick v. State, Fla.App,1964, 164 So.2d 557, (1964). If, in fact, the appellant is not serving a sentence under the robbery conviction or the sentences imposed under the forgery matters are in excess of that of the robbery conviction, then the appellant should be granted a full and complete formal hearing.
It does not appear that it will be necessary for the appellant to be present at the time of the inquiry by the trial court as to the robbery sentence, but this is a matter which would be in the discretion of the trial judge.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review is hereby reversed with directions.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yates v. State, 199 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…ns concurrently with those sentences now questioned, he would not be entitled to release even if he prevailed in his motion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed on authority of Johnson v. State, 184 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1966), and Paul v. State, 165 So. 2d 779 (Fla.App.3d, 1964). RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.…
-
O'Malley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 237 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…without evidentiary hearing. Allegations in a motion to vacate judgment under CrPR 1.850 that a guilty plea was coerced is sufficient to entitle a petitioner to a hearing. Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 488; Paul v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 779; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 95; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 279; Reddick v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 340. Obviously, the time for appealing the order denying motion to vacate to this Court has long since expired, b…
-
Escue v. State, 192 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…ng a life sentence as a fourth felony offender, could not challenge under Rule 1 the validity of his prior convictions which had already been satisfied by service. The 3rd District Court followed the McCormick holding in Paul v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 779. Phis 2nd District Court, in White v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 799, held that Rule 1 was available only to a prisoner in custody under the sentence which, by his motion, he was moving to vacate. In that case petitioner was serving a sentence…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCORMICK v. State, 164 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)