Ream v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ream v. State

426 So. 2d 1310, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20707

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 2, 1983

DocketNo. 82-833

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 426 So. 2d 1310 (Ream 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

Ream v. State, 426 So. 2d 1310, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20707 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants appeal denial of their 3.850 motions. The record is extremely cloudy and it appears that the denial of these motions occurred without an eviden-tiary hearing. The 3.850 motions attack defendants’ three-year sentences on the grounds that they were not in compliance with a negotiated plea agreement for probation only. The 3.850 motions also assert that no court reporter was present at the time of the change of plea. In this respect the mandatory provisions of Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(j) should be noted.

After reviewing the cloudy record in this case, we conclude that the defendants were at least entitled to present evidence in support of their 3.850 motions, and the order of the court denying the motions is vacated. The matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants appeal denial of their 3.850 motions. The record is extremely cloudy and it appears that the denial of these motions occurred without an eviden-tiary hearing. The 3.850 motions attack defendants’ three-year sentences on the grounds that they were not in compliance with a negotiated plea agreement for probation only. The 3.850 motions also assert that no court reporter was present at the time of the change of plea. In this respect the mandatory provisions of Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(j) should be noted.

After reviewing the cloudy record in this case, we conclude that the defendants were at least entitled to present evidence in support of their 3.850 motions, and the order of the court denying the motions is vacated. The matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 So. 2d 1310, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ream-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack