Brim v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brim v. State

696 So. 2d 1320, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 1997 WL 405958

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 1997

DocketNo. 96-4555

StatusPublished

This text of 696 So. 2d 1320 (Brim v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brim v. State, 696 So. 2d 1320, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 1997 WL 405958 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the order by which the trial court summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We reverse the order in part because the appellant alleged a colorable claim that his plea was involuntary due to erroneous advice provided by his trial counsel as to the sentencing guidelines range for his offenses.

The appellant entered a plea of nolo con-tendere to various charges and was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement to 22 years in prison. In Ground 8 of his motion, the appellant alleged that his decision to enter the plea was based on an erroneous scoresheet presented to him by his counsel. The scoresheet showed a guideline range of 27 years to life imprisonment. As the state conceded in its response to the motion in the trial court, the scoresheet should have reflected a permitted range of 12 to 27 years and a recommended range of 17 to 22 years. The appellant alleged in his motion that but for the erroneous information provided by his counsel, he would not have entered the plea. The appellant’s claim was facially sufficient and it should not have been summarily denied.

The order is reversed as to Ground 8 and this ease is remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of records conclusively showing that the appellant is entitled to no relief. The order is otherwise affirmed.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the order by which the trial court summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We reverse the order in part because the appellant alleged a colorable claim that his plea was involuntary due to erroneous advice provided by his trial counsel as to the sentencing guidelines range for his offenses.

The appellant entered a plea of nolo con-tendere to various charges and was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement to 22 years in prison. In Ground 8 of his motion, the appellant alleged that his decision to enter the plea was based on an erroneous scoresheet presented to him by his counsel. The scoresheet showed a guideline range of 27 years to life imprisonment. As the state conceded in its response to the motion in the trial court, the scoresheet should have reflected a permitted range of 12 to 27 years and a recommended range of 17 to 22 years. The appellant alleged in his motion that but for the erroneous information provided by his counsel, he would not have entered the plea. The appellant’s claim was facially sufficient and it should not have been summarily denied.

The order is reversed as to Ground 8 and this ease is remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of records conclusively showing that the appellant is entitled to no relief. The order is otherwise affirmed.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 1320, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 1997 WL 405958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brim-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.