MARSHALL VAUGHAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

MARSHALL S. VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4443

Decided: April 28, 2017

Marshall S. Vaughan, Raiford, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Marshall S. Vaughn appeals the trial court's summary denial of his Second Motion to Vacate and Set Aside a Sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he asserted three claims for relief. We affirm the trial court's denial of Vaughn's second and third claims without further discussion. In his first claim, Vaughn argued he involuntarily entered his plea because he was not informed about his possible maximum sentence as a habitual felony offender. “[P]rior to acceptance of the plea: 1) the defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences.” Baker v. State, 12 So. 3d 281, 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486, 490 (Fla. 1993)). We find that the attached records do not conclusively refute Vaughn's claim. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of the first claim and remand for the trial court to either attach records or hold an evidentiary hearing to conclusively establish that the trial court advised Vaughn of the consequences of his habitualization.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with Instructions.

WALLIS, J.

PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.