DONNELL WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1990-09-14
No. 90-02016
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
566 So. 2d 604 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1990)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the trial court's denial of the motion for postconviction relief was not conclusively refuted by the record, requiring further proceedings.


Facts & Procedural History

Donnell Wilson appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging his guilty plea was based on a promise of a lesser sentence than …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Donnell Wilson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief. We reverse.

This is the second appeal in connection with Wilson’s motion. In Wilson v. State, 559 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), we reversed for further proceedings with regard to one issue. Wilson had alleged that he entered his plea of guilty with the understanding he would receive a sentence of no more than four and one-half years, without consecutive probation. In fact, he received twenty-seven years followed by thirty years’ probation.

After remand the trial judge again denied the motion. He attached a transcript from May 23, 1989, which indicates that Wilson was present in court when his case was discussed, including the possible penalty. Neither this exhibit nor those previously forwarded to this court conclusively refute Wilson’s claim that he was promised a certain sentence. Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the event an evidentiary hearing is deemed to be necessary, it is probably advisable for Wilson to be present. See Barr v. State, 548 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Reversed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw