Cameron v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cameron v. State

582 So. 2d 168, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6709, 1991 WL 126709

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 10, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2960

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 582 So. 2d 168 (Cameron 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

Cameron v. State, 582 So. 2d 168, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6709, 1991 WL 126709 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Billy Hernandez Cameron, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he raised three grounds: (1) that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered; (2) that his habitual offender sentence was illegal because the trial court failed to follow the procedural safeguards set out in section 775.084, Florida Statutes; and (3) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court’s denial of grounds 1 and 3, since the written plea of guilty and negotiated sentence, signed by the appellant and attached to the trial court’s order, negates both of [169]*169those grounds by containing statements that defendant was satisfied with his attorney, that all aspects of the plea were fully explained to his complete satisfaction, and that the plea was freely and voluntarily entered. Thomas v. State, 419 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We reverse the denial of ground 2, however, and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record and file conclusively showing that the appellant is entitled to no relief, or to take such further action as is required by Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Billy Hernandez Cameron, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he raised three grounds: (1) that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered; (2) that his habitual offender sentence was illegal because the trial court failed to follow the procedural safeguards set out in section 775.084, Florida Statutes; and (3) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court’s denial of grounds 1 and 3, since the written plea of guilty and negotiated sentence, signed by the appellant and attached to the trial court’s order, negates both of [169]*169those grounds by containing statements that defendant was satisfied with his attorney, that all aspects of the plea were fully explained to his complete satisfaction, and that the plea was freely and voluntarily entered. Thomas v. State, 419 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We reverse the denial of ground 2, however, and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record and file conclusively showing that the appellant is entitled to no relief, or to take such further action as is required by Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 So. 2d 168, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6709, 1991 WL 126709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cameron-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack