Flores v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Flores v. State

747 So. 2d 485, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 351, 2000 WL 35857

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-2551

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 747 So. 2d 485 (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, 747 So. 2d 485, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 351, 2000 WL 35857 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jeffery K. Flores, the appellant, challenges an order denying relief sought in his motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant claimed several errors in his guidelines seoresheet, but the lower court denied relief, on the authority of Hill v. State, 730 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), because appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement. The record on appeal, however, does not substantiate the lower court’s statement that appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement. The state, upon issuance of a Toler¹ order, has conceded that a remand is required so that the lower court m.ay attach to its order denying post-conviction relief portions of the record demonstrating that appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement and hence is not entitled to relief on the grounds stated in his motion. See Floyd v. State, 735 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

The cause is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWRENCE, DAVIS AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jeffery K. Flores, the appellant, challenges an order denying relief sought in his motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant claimed several errors in his guidelines seoresheet, but the lower court denied relief, on the authority of Hill v. State, 730 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), because appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement. The record on appeal, however, does not substantiate the lower court’s statement that appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement. The state, upon issuance of a Toler¹ order, has conceded that a remand is required so that the lower court m.ay attach to its order denying post-conviction relief portions of the record demonstrating that appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement and hence is not entitled to relief on the grounds stated in his motion. See Floyd v. State, 735 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

The cause is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWRENCE, DAVIS AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

747 So. 2d 485, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 351, 2000 WL 35857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack