Ward v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ward v. State

545 So. 2d 523, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1620, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3743, 1989 WL 72748

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 1989

DocketNo. 89-644

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 523 (Ward 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

Ward v. State, 545 So. 2d 523, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1620, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3743, 1989 WL 72748 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a Rule 3.850 motion. Although the first two issues raised by the defendant are legally insufficient or refuted by the exhibits to the motion, the trial court erred in denying the motion as to the allegation that the defendant entered his plea based on an agreement that he would receive a term of incarceration within the recommended guideline range, when in fact his sentence was increased one cell and included probation. Although the trial court indicated that the increase was based on a plea agreement, that statement does not refute the possibility that the defendant was not properly advised as to the terms of the agreement or that he misunderstood the bargain. Since the motion is facially sufficient on this ground, the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s allegations regarding his plea bargain, or to direct the state to file an answer and determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a Rule 3.850 motion. Although the first two issues raised by the defendant are legally insufficient or refuted by the exhibits to the motion, the trial court erred in denying the motion as to the allegation that the defendant entered his plea based on an agreement that he would receive a term of incarceration within the recommended guideline range, when in fact his sentence was increased one cell and included probation. Although the trial court indicated that the increase was based on a plea agreement, that statement does not refute the possibility that the defendant was not properly advised as to the terms of the agreement or that he misunderstood the bargain. Since the motion is facially sufficient on this ground, the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s allegations regarding his plea bargain, or to direct the state to file an answer and determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 523, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1620, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3743, 1989 WL 72748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack