Hills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hills v. State

671 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3480, 1996 WL 159122

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3417

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 671 So. 2d 223 (Hills 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

Hills v. State, 671 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3480, 1996 WL 159122 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Hills appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm his first issue in which he contends that he was not informed about the requirement of minimum mandatory sentences prior to the entry of his plea, as this claim is conclusively refuted by the record, but we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to his second.

Regarding the latter, Hills alleged that he entered an involuntary plea, because his lawyer did not inform him that his habitual violent felony offender sentence would preclude him from receiving basic gain-time. The trial court rejected this claim, relying on case law predating Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993). Because the trial court did not attach the plea colloquy to its order, this panel cannot determine whether the sentencing court ensured, pursuant to Ashley, that Hills was aware of the consequences of habit-ualization. We therefore reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to reconsider this issue in light of Ashley.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings.

ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John Hills appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm his first issue in which he contends that he was not informed about the requirement of minimum mandatory sentences prior to the entry of his plea, as this claim is conclusively refuted by the record, but we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to his second.

Regarding the latter, Hills alleged that he entered an involuntary plea, because his lawyer did not inform him that his habitual violent felony offender sentence would preclude him from receiving basic gain-time. The trial court rejected this claim, relying on case law predating Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993). Because the trial court did not attach the plea colloquy to its order, this panel cannot determine whether the sentencing court ensured, pursuant to Ashley, that Hills was aware of the consequences of habit-ualization. We therefore reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to reconsider this issue in light of Ashley.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings.

ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3480, 1996 WL 159122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hills-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack