Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David FAIRES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
After entering a no contest plea to ten counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition and one count of stalking, Faires was sentenced to ten years in prison followed by forty-five years sex offender probation. He subsequently filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging that he would not have entered the plea but for his counsel's assurance that he would not receive more than four years in prison. The trial court summarily denied Faires' motion. No transcript of the plea colloquy was attached to the trial court's order. We reverse.
The written plea form executed by Faires did not set forth any agreement regarding the sentence to be imposed. It did include a provision advising Faires of the maximum sentence for each charge against him. In summarily denying Faires' motion, the trial court relied upon the following language found in the plea form:
I have not been promised any reward nor has it been suggested that I will be rewarded in any manner, or that I will be given any leniency, other than the terms set forth in this document, in return for my entering this plea. No person has used any threats, force, pressure or intimidation to induce me to make this plea. No promises concerning gain time or potential release dates have been made to me.
This language does not conclusively refute Faires' claim. State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996) (general acknowledgment that defendant not promised anything to plead guilty fails to conclusively refute sworn allegation that defendant prompted to enter plea by attorney's misrepresentation regarding length of sentence); see also Johnson v. State, 757 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). On remand, the trial court shall attach additional records conclusively refuting Faires' claim or, in the alternative, conduct an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PER CURIAM.
MONACO, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 5D08-1794.
Decided: November 21, 2008
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)