Toler v. State
| Decision Date | 25 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BL-203,BL-203 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1626, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1918 Joe TOLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joe Toler, in pro. per.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee (on rehearing only).
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying the defendant's Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant was sentenced after the October 1, 1983 effective date of sentencing guidelines for an offense which was committed prior to that date. His motion alleged that his decision not to be sentenced under the guidelines was based upon his attorney's erroneous advice that the guidelines scoresheet, which had been prepared and shown to him prior to sentencing, called for a sentence of 9-12 years. He also alleged that his attorney told him that he would be given the upper range of 12 years with no possibility of parole if he elected to be sentenced under the guidelines. He claimed that he decided to be sentenced under the prior law since he knew that the maximum sentence that he could receive for his offense, burglary of a dwelling, would be 15 years and that the law pertaining to parole would be applicable to an "old-law" sentence. Accordingly, he was sentenced under the old law to the maximum term of 15 years.
The defendant's motion further alleged that he later discovered that the scoresheet was erroneous by reason of improper scoring in certain material respects which he described in his motion. Absent the errors, the guidelines range, according to the defendant, would have been 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years. He alleged he would have elected to be sentenced under the guidelines had he not been erroneously informed by his attorney regarding the scoresheet. He claims entitlement to relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The portions of the record attached to the trial court's order do not refute the defendant's allegations. The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We agree with our sister court's decision in the strikingly similar case of Brown v. State, 480 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We agree with the state's contention in its motion for rehearing that our opinion's direction to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be modified, as in Price v. State, 487 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (on Motion for Rehearing), so that, instead, the trial court is directed to conduct further proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.850, as amended in 1984.
The 1984 amendment requires that, unless the motion and files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the trial court "shall order the State Attorney to file an answer or other pleading within the period of time fixed by the court or to take such other action as the judge deems appropriate." Apparently, from the record before us, the trial court did not order the state attorney to file a responsive pleading.
The salutary purpose for the above amendment is to afford the state the opportunity to respond to the defendant's motion. Our adversary system of justice works best when both sides are heard. Moreover, although the reasons given by the trial court for summary denial of the motion may be flawed, the state, if given the opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harmon v. Barton
...in any 3.850 appeal only where it initially appears to the panel that the trial court's order should be reversed. Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986). The Rule's assumption appears to be that most appeals from rulings without a hearing under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 can be ......
-
Washington v. Inch
...case number 1D16-1629, and he did not file a brief. Ex. N at 199-200; Ex. O. The First DCA issued an order pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), directing the State to show cause why the summary denial of the second ground should not be reversed. Ex. P. The State f......
-
McCoy v. State, s. 91-1689
...assistance of counsel claims were refuted by the signed plea agreement. Therefore, we issued an order pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), requesting the Attorney General's office to file a brief addressing appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of The state'......
-
Cummings v. State
...DCA 2006) (holding that a defendant is entitled to jail credit as to only the first of consecutive sentences). In response to this Court's Toler order,1 the State did not dispute that the original sentencing court had orally announced that the Appellant would receive 228 days of jail credit......