Flores v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Flores v. State

717 So. 2d 161, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11672, 1998 WL 618226

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 1998

DocketNo. 98-133

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 717 So. 2d 161 (Flores 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

Flores v. State, 717 So. 2d 161, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11672, 1998 WL 618226 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jose R. Flores (“defendant”), challenges an order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We are constrained by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996) to reverse.

The record, which includes the transcript of the plea hearing, does not conclusively refute the defendant’s allegation that his plea was induced by erroneous information regarding the amount of time he would actually serve, provided by his attorney. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the defendant’s motion for postconvietion relief as to this issue only, and remand for an evidentia-ry hearing on this matter. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d at 235 (misrepresentation by counsel as to the length of a sentence can be the basis for postconvietion relief; defendant’s negative response to question whether anything was promised him to induce plea did not conclusively refute postconvietion ineffective assistance claim based on counsel’s misrepresentations regarding sentence).

Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jose R. Flores (“defendant”), challenges an order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We are constrained by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996) to reverse.

The record, which includes the transcript of the plea hearing, does not conclusively refute the defendant’s allegation that his plea was induced by erroneous information regarding the amount of time he would actually serve, provided by his attorney. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the defendant’s motion for postconvietion relief as to this issue only, and remand for an evidentia-ry hearing on this matter. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d at 235 (misrepresentation by counsel as to the length of a sentence can be the basis for postconvietion relief; defendant’s negative response to question whether anything was promised him to induce plea did not conclusively refute postconvietion ineffective assistance claim based on counsel’s misrepresentations regarding sentence).

Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 So. 2d 161, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11672, 1998 WL 618226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack