James v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

James v. State

670 So. 2d 976, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 75, 1996 WL 5135

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2279

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 670 So. 2d 976 (James 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

James v. State, 670 So. 2d 976, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 75, 1996 WL 5135 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arthur James’ allegation that his plea to three counts of aggravated battery was not knowing and voluntary because his trial counsel affirmatively misinformed him that, through the operation of control release, he would serve only seven months of his twelve-year sentence in prison states a facially sufficient claim for relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Where a petitioner alleges that trial counsel affirmatively misinformed him as to the amount of time petitioner would spend in prison, the plea agreement form and the petitioner’s oral statements at the sentencing hearing acknowledging that the plea is knowing and voluntary do not conclusively establish no entitlement to relief. Eady v. State, 604 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); appeal after remand, 622 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Smith v. State, 667 So.2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We reverse and remand for attachment of record conclusively refuting James’ entitlement to relief, or for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.

BOOTH, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Arthur James’ allegation that his plea to three counts of aggravated battery was not knowing and voluntary because his trial counsel affirmatively misinformed him that, through the operation of control release, he would serve only seven months of his twelve-year sentence in prison states a facially sufficient claim for relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Where a petitioner alleges that trial counsel affirmatively misinformed him as to the amount of time petitioner would spend in prison, the plea agreement form and the petitioner’s oral statements at the sentencing hearing acknowledging that the plea is knowing and voluntary do not conclusively establish no entitlement to relief. Eady v. State, 604 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); appeal after remand, 622 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Smith v. State, 667 So.2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We reverse and remand for attachment of record conclusively refuting James’ entitlement to relief, or for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.

BOOTH, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 So. 2d 976, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 75, 1996 WL 5135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack