Gardner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gardner v. State

784 So. 2d 534, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5960, 2001 WL 434924

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-4579

StatusPublished

This text of 784 So. 2d 534 (Gardner 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

Gardner v. State, 784 So. 2d 534, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5960, 2001 WL 434924 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Samuel J. Gardner appeals an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 as untimely. Mr. Gardner’s judgment and sentence became final on August 18, 1988. He alleges in his motion that he learned for the first time on January 4, 1999, that the state had communicated to his lawyer before trial an offer to let him plead to a lesser-included offense and receive a shorter sentence than the one he received after his trial and conviction; that the lawyer who received this offer did not inform him of it; and that he would have accepted the offer had he known of it. These allegations, including the allegation that Mr. Gardner learned of the plea offer only belatedly when he saw certain written materials for the first time, are not refuted by the record. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850(b)(1) (abrogating time limits where “the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant”); Rodriguez v. State, 777 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Seymore v. State, 693 So.2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting Mr. Gardner’s claims.

WEBSTER, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Samuel J. Gardner appeals an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 as untimely. Mr. Gardner’s judgment and sentence became final on August 18, 1988. He alleges in his motion that he learned for the first time on January 4, 1999, that the state had communicated to his lawyer before trial an offer to let him plead to a lesser-included offense and receive a shorter sentence than the one he received after his trial and conviction; that the lawyer who received this offer did not inform him of it; and that he would have accepted the offer had he known of it. These allegations, including the allegation that Mr. Gardner learned of the plea offer only belatedly when he saw certain written materials for the first time, are not refuted by the record. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850(b)(1) (abrogating time limits where “the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant”); Rodriguez v. State, 777 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Seymore v. State, 693 So.2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting Mr. Gardner’s claims.

WEBSTER, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

784 So. 2d 534, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5960, 2001 WL 434924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack