SAMUEL GILES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Samuel Giles appealed the denial of his motion to vacate a guilty plea, claiming his public defender misrepresented his defense and misled him regarding his chances at trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that Giles' sworn allegations stated sufficient grounds for relief and required a hearing on the merits.
A sworn motion alleging counsel's misrepresentation of the defendant's defense and that the guilty plea was not freely and voluntarily given, absent a direct denial in the record, states sufficient grounds for relief requiring a hearing at which the defendant may present evidence to support the allegations.
[1] A sworn motion to vacate a judgment, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel leading to an involuntary guilty plea, is sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing if…
[2] Allegations that defense counsel misrepresented the chances of success at trial and promised probation in exchange for a guilty plea, which was then entered, state a grou…
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“The motion on its face, sworn to as true by the appellant, in absence of a direct denial in the record, states a ground for relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 3.850, sufficient to require a hearing at which the appellant would have the opportunity to present evidence to sustain (if he could) his allegations of fact.”
Establishes the legal standard that sworn allegations not directly denied in the record are sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on a 3.850 motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGiles pleaded guilty to obtaining property by worthless check after his public defender allegedly told him he had no chance at trial and would receive…
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 Misrepresentation By Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
By this appeal, the appellant seeks to review an order of the trial court which summarily denied his motion to vacate pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The principal thrust of his sworn motion is that upon conferring with the public defender assigned to his case, he was led to believe that he didn’t stand a chance at trial and that, in return for a plea of guilty, he would be given probation; that, upon being so informed, he did in fact withdraw his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the charge of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, in violation of Section 832.-05(3), Florida Statutes (1975). He was given probation, which was subsequently revoked. He further alleged that the public defender misrepresented his defense, in that he did in fact have a valid defense to the charge, in that the check was accepted with full and prior knowledge that it was worthless.
Thus, the appellant contends his guilty plea was not freely and voluntarily given with full knowledge.
The motion on its face, sworn to as true by the appellant, in absence of a direct denial in the record, states a ground for relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 3.850, sufficient to require a hearing at which the appellant would have the opportunity to present evidence to sustain (if he could) his allegations of fact. Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); Bartz V. State, 221 So. 2d 7 (Fla.2d DCA 1969).
The record before this court does not show conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, based on the allegations of his sworn motion.1 Thus, pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), we are compelled to reverse the trial court and remand the cause for a hearing. In so doing, we repeat what has been said previously. Where cases have been reversed for evidentiary hearing, if the evidence at such hearing should develop to the satisfaction of the trial judge that there was never any basis in fact for the sworn allegations as made, we would strongly recommend consideration by the trial court or state attorney of either prosecution for perjury or citation for contempt. Breamfield v. State, 166 So. 2d 484 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); Thomas v. State, 210 So. 2d 488 (Fla.2d DCA 1968); Bartz v. State, supra; Bumgarner v. State, 245 So. 2d 635 (Fla.4th DCA 1971).
The order appealed from is thereupon reversed, with directions to the trial judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the allegations contained in the appellant’s motion, and then either grant or deny the relief sought by the appellant.
. Payne v. State, 362 So. 2d 688 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), opinion filed September 8, 1978.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1980)…reviewing the motion must either attach that portion of the case file or record which conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief or grant an evidentia-ry hearing. Gunn v. State, 378 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Giles v. State, 363 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Payne v. State, 362 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Based on our review of the record presented to this Court, we cannot say that appellant’s specific allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, considered collectively, conc…
-
Martinez v. State, 402 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…1 allegations (a) that he was given erroneous advice by appointed counsel concerning the non-existence, under the law, of his alleged defense of self-defense to the charges against him, see State v. Lyles, 316 So. 2d 277 (Fla.1975); Giles v. State, 363 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); and (b) that, in pleading guilty, he was not informed and did not understand that he was waiving his right to trial by jury. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (F…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Eligha Thomas v. State, 210 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Payne v. State, 362 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Bumgarner v. State, 245 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Breamfield v. State, 166 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Bartz v. State, 221 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)