Ford v. State, 1D07-3203.
Decision Date | 06 March 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 1D07-3203.,1D07-3203. |
Citation | 975 So.2d 1191 |
Parties | Ronald FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ronald Ford, pro se, Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Christine Ann Guard, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant Ronald Ford appeals an order denying his rule 3.850 motion in which he asserts that his counsel was ineffective because prior to entering his plea she affirmatively misadvised him as to who was responsible for concurrently imposing the sentences in the instant case to his sentence imposed for his conditional release violation. The record indicates that the appellant requested, as a condition of entering his plea, that the sentences be concurrently imposed, and that counsel provided advice which could reasonably lead him to believe that they would be concurrently imposed. The sentences have been consecutively imposed. Neither the plea hearing transcript nor the plea form attached by the trial court in support of its order conclusively refute the claim. However, the record contains a letter in which trial counsel misadvises the appellant, and makes reference to having previously provided him the same misadvice, that it was up to the Parole Commission or the Department of Corrections [DOC] to concurrently impose the sentences. This is incorrect. See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2005) (); Richardson v. State, 947 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (); Bruce v. State, 679 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (). Counsel failed to ask the court to concurrently impose the sentences.
Although the appellant has submitted a claim which is not refuted by the record, he does not state that he desires to withdraw his plea, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Widemond v. State
...the Department of Corrections because the Department lacks such sentencing authority. Id. (citations omitted); see also Ford v. State, 975 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (same). The Richardson court went on to hold that the appellant's sentence was illegal. Richardson, 947 So.2d at 1221. Be......
- Tanner v. Tanner, 1D07-4962.