NOTABLE FIRM CASES
Below is a sampling of written opinions from cases handled by the firm. Click on each box to review the complete written opinions.
Thompson v. State, 987 So.2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) - Reversal of Life Sentences and Resentencing- when consecutive life sentences for murder and burglary were changed, on motion to correct illegal sentence, to remove habitual felony offender designations, defendant was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing.
Ellis v. State, 907 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) – Improper Summary Denial of 3.850 Reversed - Portions of record attached to summary denial of motion for postconviction relief failed to conclusively refute defendant’s allegations that he was promised a sentence at the bottom of the sentencing guidelines range for the offenses to which he pled guilty, and that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet reflected a lowest permissible prison sentence of 66 months, rather than the eight years to which he was sentenced, requiring remand for the attachment of additional portions of the record or an evidentiary hearing
Fabian v. State, 932 So.2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) – Involuntary Plea due to Belief that Sentence would be Concurrent with Another Sentence - Movant was entitled to hearing, or to attachment of record, on his motion to vacate plea disposing of violation of probation charges, where movant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise sentencing court of its authority to run movant’s 15-year statutory maximum sentence concurrent with an existing sentence, that he entered plea based upon his impression that existing sentence provided for concurrent sentencing, and that sentencing court believed it lacked authority to impose concurrent sentence.
Sult v. State, 42 So.3d 867 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010) – Illegal Sentence –Defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence, which alleged that his consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for burglary of a dwelling and other offenses was illegal, was not procedurally barred as successive, and thus defendant was entitled to relief if the record showed that the subject offenses occurred in a single criminal episode, even though issue was raised in two prior postconviction motions; first postconviction motion raising the issue was denied as untimely and second as successive, and intervening caselaw extended the time to raise the issue such that the first motion was rendered timely.