Pawle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pawle v. State

861 So. 2d 1174, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18037, 2003 WL 22794546

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 2003

DocketNo. 2D03-2177

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 861 So. 2d 1174 (Pawle 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

Pawle v. State, 861 So. 2d 1174, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18037, 2003 WL 22794546 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

Anthony Pawle challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.

Pawle seeks to withdraw his plea because he alleges that counsel misadvised him regarding his jail credit award during the plea and sentencing phases of his case. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the plea colloquy does not refute the allegation [1175]*1175of affirmative misadvice about the amount of jail credit that Pawle would receive because jail credit was never discussed during the plea colloquy. As we stated in Johnson v. State, 736 So.2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and again in Dow v. State, 823 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), “In order to adequately refute a claim like this from the record, the discussion with the court must explore the specific issue upon which the defendant asserts he was misad-vised.” Because his allegation is not refuted by the record, we must reverse the order of the trial court and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

Anthony Pawle challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.

Pawle seeks to withdraw his plea because he alleges that counsel misadvised him regarding his jail credit award during the plea and sentencing phases of his case. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the plea colloquy does not refute the allegation [1175]*1175of affirmative misadvice about the amount of jail credit that Pawle would receive because jail credit was never discussed during the plea colloquy. As we stated in Johnson v. State, 736 So.2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and again in Dow v. State, 823 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), “In order to adequately refute a claim like this from the record, the discussion with the court must explore the specific issue upon which the defendant asserts he was misad-vised.” Because his allegation is not refuted by the record, we must reverse the order of the trial court and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 1174, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18037, 2003 WL 22794546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pawle-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack