Turpin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Turpin v. State

651 So. 2d 176, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1641, 1995 WL 66966

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1995

DocketNo. 94-1943

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 651 So. 2d 176 (Turpin 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

Turpin v. State, 651 So. 2d 176, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1641, 1995 WL 66966 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of Turpin’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although Turpin pled guilty to armed burglary and agreed to a prison sentence with a mandatory three-year minimum for use of a firearm, this did not constitute an admission that he was in actual possession of a firearm. Bell v. State, 589 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A defendant must actually possess the firearm during the crime to be subject to the minimum mandatory. Earnest v. State, 351 So.2d 957 (Fla.1977). The trial court did not inquire at the plea hearing whether there was a factual basis for imposing the minimum mandatory.

In his post-conviction motion, Turpin alleged that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s omission, in that his co-defendant allegedly prepared an affidavit stating that he, and not Turpin, possessed the only firearm used during the robbery. Accordingly, Turpin has raised a prima facie ground for relief. Nowlin v. State, 639 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of Turpin’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although Turpin pled guilty to armed burglary and agreed to a prison sentence with a mandatory three-year minimum for use of a firearm, this did not constitute an admission that he was in actual possession of a firearm. Bell v. State, 589 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A defendant must actually possess the firearm during the crime to be subject to the minimum mandatory. Earnest v. State, 351 So.2d 957 (Fla.1977). The trial court did not inquire at the plea hearing whether there was a factual basis for imposing the minimum mandatory.

In his post-conviction motion, Turpin alleged that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s omission, in that his co-defendant allegedly prepared an affidavit stating that he, and not Turpin, possessed the only firearm used during the robbery. Accordingly, Turpin has raised a prima facie ground for relief. Nowlin v. State, 639 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 So. 2d 176, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1641, 1995 WL 66966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turpin-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack