Lull v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lull v. State

140 So. 3d 692, 2014 WL 2601683, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9039

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-5943

StatusPublished

This text of 140 So. 3d 692 (Lull 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

Lull v. State, 140 So. 3d 692, 2014 WL 2601683, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9039 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion raising three claims. We affirm the first and third claims without comment. We find merit as to Appellant’s second claim that trial counsel acted ineffectively because he failed to inform Appellant of the correct statutory maximum sentences he faced for the three offenses charged against him before he entered his plea. See Lane v. State, 839 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (stating “a plea is involuntary if a defendant pleads to a crime when he is unaware of the maximum penalty of such crime.”). The record attached by the lower court does not conclusively refute the claim, and the State has conceded that if this court determines that the claim is not conclusively refuted by the record, the claim should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. We, therefore, reverse claim two for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion raising three claims. We affirm the first and third claims without comment. We find merit as to Appellant’s second claim that trial counsel acted ineffectively because he failed to inform Appellant of the correct statutory maximum sentences he faced for the three offenses charged against him before he entered his plea. See Lane v. State, 839 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (stating “a plea is involuntary if a defendant pleads to a crime when he is unaware of the maximum penalty of such crime.”). The record attached by the lower court does not conclusively refute the claim, and the State has conceded that if this court determines that the claim is not conclusively refuted by the record, the claim should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. We, therefore, reverse claim two for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 3d 692, 2014 WL 2601683, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lull-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack