WILFORD L. LANG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant Lang sought post-conviction relief claiming his counsel misrepresented the sentencing consequences of his guilty plea to a drug possession charge, specifically regarding whether sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. The trial court summarily denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing or record support, and the appellate court reversed, holding that allegations of counsel's affirmative misrepresentations about plea consequences warrant either an evidentiary hearing or conclusive record evidence of non-entitlement to relief.
Affirmative misrepresentations by defense counsel concerning the consequences of a guilty plea may warrant remanding the case to the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing on the allegation or attach record portions showing the movant is not entitled to relief. Lang stated a sufficiently legal claim, and therefore the case is reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record establishing Lang is not entitled to relief.
[1] Affirmative misrepresentations by defense counsel concerning the consequences of a guilty plea may warrant remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of…
[2] A defendant may be entitled to post-conviction relief when defense counsel misrepresents the sentence to be received in connection with a guilty plea.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Affirmative misrepresentations by defense counsel concerning the consequences of a guilty plea may warrant remanding the case to the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing on the allegation or to attach those portions of the record showing the movant is not entitled to relief.”
Establishes the legal standard for when counsel's misrepresentations about plea consequences warrant relief or procedural remedy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Lang pleaded guilty to a drug possession charge based on his counsel's assurance that the sentence would run concurrently with a separate mi…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wilford Lang (Appellant) filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure in which he alleged his counsel misrepresented the sentence he would receive in connection with his guilty plea to a drug possession charge. Appellant claims that based upon his counsel’s assurance, he agreed to plead guilty to the drug offense provided the sentence would run concurrently with a sentence on a separate, misdemeanor offense. Upon his incarceration, Appellant learned that he would have to serve the sentence imposed in the mis demeanor conviction after completing his sentence on the drug offense. The trial court summarily denied his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching any portions of the record conclusively establishing that Appellant was not entitled to relief.
Affirmative misrepresentations by defense counsel concerning the consequences of a guilty plea may warrant remanding the case to the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing on the allegation or to attach those portions of the record showing the movant is not entitled to relief. See Muschett v. State, 609 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(remanding where defendant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel misled him regarding the gain time and control release consequences of his plea to attempted murder); Regan v. State, 730 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(remanding with directions that trial court identify and attach to order additional portions of record refuting claim of ineffective assistance of counsel given defense counsel’s misleading information that sentences for new offenses would run concurrently with sentence imposed for violation of controlled release); Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086, 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(fínding pri-ma facie case for relief under rule 3.850 where defendant alleged that trial counsel or trial court misled him to believe that he would serve two separate sentences concurrently rather than consecutively); and McCoy v. State, 598 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(finding facially sufficient defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim where defense attorney misrepresented the consequences of a plea and defendant alleges he would not have entered plea but for his attorney’s advice).
We find that Appellant stated a sufficiently legal claim. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to either hold an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claim or attach portions of the record establishing that Appellant is' not entitled to relief.
GUNTHER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 67 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…uld be run consecutively to the existing sentence, he would not have pleaded but would have proceeded to trial. Mr. Carter presented a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Sawyers v. State, 566 So. 2d 942, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Lang v. State, 758 So. 2d 1219, 1219-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The post-conviction court denied the claim, finding that it was not supported by the transcript of the plea hearing, which did not contain any mention of concurrent or consecutive sentences. The postconvietion court als…
Authorities Cited
- McCOY v. State, 598 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Regan v. State, 730 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Crosby v. State, 609 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)