Gould v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gould v. State

826 So. 2d 1101, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14266, 2002 WL 31203525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 2002

DocketNo. 5D02-2075

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 826 So. 2d 1101 (Gould 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

Gould v. State, 826 So. 2d 1101, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14266, 2002 WL 31203525 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, J.

Defendant Edward Gould appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion. We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s ineffective assistance claims because defendant fails to allege that he had a viable defense to the charges against him. See Grosvenor v. State, 816 So.2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Maples v. State, 804 So.2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). However, we reverse as to defendant’s claim that his plea was involuntary. Defendant alleges that his plea was involuntary, because his counsel promised him that he would only be sentenced to five years, but nonetheless told him that he should tell the court that no promises were made. Defendant alleges that he would not have entered his plea, but for counsel’s promise. The plea transcript does not conclusively refute defendant’s claim. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996); Johnson v. State, 757 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Beagle v. State, 710 So.2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, J.

Defendant Edward Gould appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion. We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s ineffective assistance claims because defendant fails to allege that he had a viable defense to the charges against him. See Grosvenor v. State, 816 So.2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Maples v. State, 804 So.2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). However, we reverse as to defendant’s claim that his plea was involuntary. Defendant alleges that his plea was involuntary, because his counsel promised him that he would only be sentenced to five years, but nonetheless told him that he should tell the court that no promises were made. Defendant alleges that he would not have entered his plea, but for counsel’s promise. The plea transcript does not conclusively refute defendant’s claim. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996); Johnson v. State, 757 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Beagle v. State, 710 So.2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 So. 2d 1101, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14266, 2002 WL 31203525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gould-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack