Rodriguez v. State

645 So. 2d 1124, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12176, 1994 WL 697423
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 14, 1994·No. No. 93-2728·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Rogelio Rodriguez appeals an order summarily denying a Rule 3.850 motion and an order revoking probation. We reverse the order summarily denying Rodriguez post-conviction relief and remand for further proceedings. Rodriguez contends that he was not aware of the maximum penalty upon entry of his plea. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(c)(1). The trial court concluded that Rodriguez “knew he was looking at substantial prison time upon a violation, a sentence in excess of twenty-seven years State Prison.” The record fails to refute Rodriguez’ claim. On remand, the trial court must conduct an eviden-tiary hearing. Griffin v. State, 644 So.2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We affirm the order revoking probation as modified. We strike the portion of the order finding that Rodriguez failed to submit timely for a drug test.

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

Rodriguez v. State, 645 So. 2d 1124, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12176, 1994 WL 697423 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

645 So. 2d 1124 (Rodriguez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gadson v. State
807 So. 2d 817 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Rodriguez v. State
688 So. 2d 425 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)