Huskins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Huskins v. State

703 So. 2d 500, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14559, 1997 WL 775517

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1997

DocketNo. 97-822

StatusPublished

This text of 703 So. 2d 500 (Huskins 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

Huskins v. State, 703 So. 2d 500, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14559, 1997 WL 775517 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant alleged in his motion for post-conviction relief that the trial court erred by failing to offer him an affirmative opportunity to withdraw his plea when he was sentenced to a term that exceeded his plea agreement with the state. See Goins v. State, 672 So.2d 30, 31 (Fla.1996). The lower court summarily denied relief. Because we are unable to determine from the plea and sentencing colloquies what appellant understood regarding the nature of his plea agreement, i.e., whether'it was an agreement only that the state would recommend a particular sentence or a firm agreement for a specific sentence, we reverse. See id. at 31. Accordingly, we remand the cause for the lower court either to attach record portions that conclusively refute appellant’s claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.

MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant alleged in his motion for post-conviction relief that the trial court erred by failing to offer him an affirmative opportunity to withdraw his plea when he was sentenced to a term that exceeded his plea agreement with the state. See Goins v. State, 672 So.2d 30, 31 (Fla.1996). The lower court summarily denied relief. Because we are unable to determine from the plea and sentencing colloquies what appellant understood regarding the nature of his plea agreement, i.e., whether'it was an agreement only that the state would recommend a particular sentence or a firm agreement for a specific sentence, we reverse. See id. at 31. Accordingly, we remand the cause for the lower court either to attach record portions that conclusively refute appellant’s claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.

MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 So. 2d 500, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14559, 1997 WL 775517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huskins-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack