LaHane v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

LaHane v. State

298 So. 2d 524, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8934

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 1974

DocketNo. 73-1226

StatusPublished

This text of 298 So. 2d 524 (LaHane 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

LaHane v. State, 298 So. 2d 524, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8934 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellant’s motion to vacate under Rule 3.850, RCrP was denied without an eviden-tiary hearing. We conclude that this was error.

Appellant alleged that his plea of nolo contendere to the offense of grand larceny was rendered involuntary because it had been entered upon the promise of his counsel and the prosecutor that the court would sentence him to one year only, but the court later sentenced him to four years instead. The record reflects that at the time of accepting the plea, the only inquiry conducted by the court relative to the question [525]*525of whether any promise had been made to appellant in exchange for the guilty plea was the question by the court, “Nobody promised you you were going to walk out the front door free for entering a plea?”, to which the appellant had responded in the negative. Obviously, such an inquiry does not reach the question of whether anyone had promised the defendant that he would receive a particular sentence or any leniency from the court in exchange for the plea. The allegation not having been conclusively refuted by the record, appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Reynolds, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 598, 600; State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892, 897; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So.2d 551; Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 447, 449.

The order appealed is reversed and this cause remanded for the purpose of affording appellant an evidentiary hearing on his motion.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

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

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellant’s motion to vacate under Rule 3.850, RCrP was denied without an eviden-tiary hearing. We conclude that this was error.

Appellant alleged that his plea of nolo contendere to the offense of grand larceny was rendered involuntary because it had been entered upon the promise of his counsel and the prosecutor that the court would sentence him to one year only, but the court later sentenced him to four years instead. The record reflects that at the time of accepting the plea, the only inquiry conducted by the court relative to the question [525]*525of whether any promise had been made to appellant in exchange for the guilty plea was the question by the court, “Nobody promised you you were going to walk out the front door free for entering a plea?”, to which the appellant had responded in the negative. Obviously, such an inquiry does not reach the question of whether anyone had promised the defendant that he would receive a particular sentence or any leniency from the court in exchange for the plea. The allegation not having been conclusively refuted by the record, appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Reynolds, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 598, 600; State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892, 897; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So.2d 551; Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 447, 449.

The order appealed is reversed and this cause remanded for the purpose of affording appellant an evidentiary hearing on his motion.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 So. 2d 524, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lahane-v-state-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack