Goodale v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goodale v. State

692 So. 2d 289, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4412, 1997 WL 205210

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3532

StatusPublished

This text of 692 So. 2d 289 (Goodale 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

Goodale v. State, 692 So. 2d 289, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4412, 1997 WL 205210 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Goodale appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, in which he raised three grounds for relief. We affirm the denial of relief as to appellant’s second and third claims without further comment, but reverse and remand for further proceedings as to his first claim.

In his first ground, appellant alleged that his plea was involuntarily induced by defense counsel’s promise that he would receive a reduced sentence in a facility in which he would receive help for the “problem” giving rise to his criminal conduct. The trial court summarily denied relief, finding this claim to be conclusively refuted by the written plea agreement and the transcript of the plea proceedings. In light of State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1996), we conclude that these portions of the record do not conclusively refute appellant’s claim, although we note in fairness to the trial court that it did not have the benefit of Leroux at the time it rendered the order at issue here.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of relief as to the first claim raised in appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand with directions to conduct further proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Goodale appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, in which he raised three grounds for relief. We affirm the denial of relief as to appellant’s second and third claims without further comment, but reverse and remand for further proceedings as to his first claim.

In his first ground, appellant alleged that his plea was involuntarily induced by defense counsel’s promise that he would receive a reduced sentence in a facility in which he would receive help for the “problem” giving rise to his criminal conduct. The trial court summarily denied relief, finding this claim to be conclusively refuted by the written plea agreement and the transcript of the plea proceedings. In light of State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1996), we conclude that these portions of the record do not conclusively refute appellant’s claim, although we note in fairness to the trial court that it did not have the benefit of Leroux at the time it rendered the order at issue here.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of relief as to the first claim raised in appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand with directions to conduct further proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 So. 2d 289, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4412, 1997 WL 205210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodale-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack