WILLIE BERNARD PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order which denied, without an evidentiary hearing, appellant s motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 3.8S0, FRCrP. Upon consideration of the record herein we are of the opinion that the appellant’s motion to vacate should not have been summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing. The allegations contained in the appellant’s motion to the effect that his guilty plea was not voluntarily made because he was not advised that he was waiving certain constitutional rights are not conclusively refuted by the files and record of the proceedings at which such plea was entered. See, in particular, Clark v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 551 and Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 447; see also Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 300; Scarborough v. State, Fla.App.1973, 278 So. 2d 657.
The order appealed from is reversed and this cause remanded for the purpose of affording the appellant an evidentiary hearing on his motion.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, C. J., and MAGER and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robbins v. State, 318 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…tion program. The only evidence adduced by the State on the charge of violation of Special Condition (L) was hearsay, objected to by appellant. The rule is that probation may not be revoked solely upon hearsay evidence. Sharp v. State, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 56; White [*473] v. State, Fla.App.1974, 301 So. 2d 464. Therefore the finding as to Special Condition (L) was improper. With reference to the violation of Special Condition (K), there was no evidence that appellant was able to make the payments in qu…
-
Demchak v. State, 351 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…hat Appellant acted improperly while on probation was the hearsay testimony of the prosecutor of the federal case. Probation revocation cannot be based solely on hearsay evidence. Robbins v. State, 318 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Sharp v. State, 303 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). While the federal grand jury indictment, which was properly admitted into evidence, charged Appellant with criminal activity during a time period which included the date he was placed on probation (April 28, 1975), some compete…
-
McSHAY v. State, 321 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…requires that on this record a presentence investigation must be considered prior to imposition of sentence, since that record does not demonstrate that appellant had ever been convicted of a prior felony.” Id. at 788-789. See also, Sharp v. State, 303 So. 2d 56 (Fla.App.4th 1974); contra, Andrews v. State, 316 So. 2d 296 (Fla.App.1st 1975). We hold that although the trial court failed to follow the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 775.11, the failure is not reversible error as Fla.Stat. § 775.11 has since been…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maxwood Clarence Brumley v. State, 224 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Davis v. State, 277 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Clark v. State, 256 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Artis Scarborough v. State, 278 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)