Puesan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Puesan v. State

539 So. 2d 508, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 516, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 845, 1989 WL 13149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2016

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 539 So. 2d 508 (Puesan 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

Puesan v. State, 539 So. 2d 508, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 516, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 845, 1989 WL 13149 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

The record before the court does not refute appellant’s sworn statements that, based on her attorney’s representations, she misunderstood the minimum mandatory sentence she could receive. Nor did the trial judge in the plea colloquy inform the appellant that the sentence of fifteen years that he could impose would be a minimum mandatory sentence. See Ramsey v. State, 408 So.2d 675, 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (test is whether defendant was prejudiced by honest misunderstanding which contaminated voluntariness of plea); Golden v. State, 509 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). (Plea may be withdrawn when defendant was induced to enter plea by mistake or misunderstanding).

We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the motion.

STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

The record before the court does not refute appellant’s sworn statements that, based on her attorney’s representations, she misunderstood the minimum mandatory sentence she could receive. Nor did the trial judge in the plea colloquy inform the appellant that the sentence of fifteen years that he could impose would be a minimum mandatory sentence. See Ramsey v. State, 408 So.2d 675, 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (test is whether defendant was prejudiced by honest misunderstanding which contaminated voluntariness of plea); Golden v. State, 509 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). (Plea may be withdrawn when defendant was induced to enter plea by mistake or misunderstanding).

We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the motion.

STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 So. 2d 508, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 516, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 845, 1989 WL 13149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puesan-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack