Shelley Goldman v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shelley Goldman v. State of Florida

171 So. 3d 234, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11948, 2015 WL 4750762

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 12, 2015

Docket4D14-4065

StatusPublished

This text of 171 So. 3d 234 (Shelley Goldman v. State of Florida) 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

Shelley Goldman v. State of Florida, 171 So. 3d 234, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11948, 2015 WL 4750762 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Shelley Goldman timely appeals the summary denial of a postconviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence of a plea offer that she first learned about at the evidentiary hearing on her prior rule 3.850 motion. The motion meets the pleading requirements of Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419, 430 (Fla.2013). There was some testimony about the plea offer at the hearing, but failure to convey a plea offer was not one of the grounds alleged in the earlier motion, so the testimony was not relevant to the grounds alleged in the earlier motion. Although circumstantial evidence exists suggesting that Goldman was made aware of the plea offer and rejected it, her claim is not conclusively refuted by the record. We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on her claim of an unconveyed plea offer. See Warner v. State, 943 So.2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Gallant v. State, 898 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Reversed and Remanded.

WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Shelley Goldman timely appeals the summary denial of a postconviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence of a plea offer that she first learned about at the evidentiary hearing on her prior rule 3.850 motion. The motion meets the pleading requirements of Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419, 430 (Fla.2013). There was some testimony about the plea offer at the hearing, but failure to convey a plea offer was not one of the grounds alleged in the earlier motion, so the testimony was not relevant to the grounds alleged in the earlier motion. Although circumstantial evidence exists suggesting that Goldman was made aware of the plea offer and rejected it, her claim is not conclusively refuted by the record. We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on her claim of an unconveyed plea offer. See Warner v. State, 943 So.2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Gallant v. State, 898 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Reversed and Remanded.

WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 3d 234, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11948, 2015 WL 4750762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelley-goldman-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack