Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Rodriguez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 14, 1994No. 93-2728Published

1ConcurrenceSchwartz, Chief Judge

(specially concurring in part).

While I concur in the determination to afford the appellant an evidentiary hearing on his 3.850 claim, I would emphasize that, to establish his right to relief because the trial court did not inform him of the maximum possible penalty before accepting his original plea, see Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(c)(1), he will be required to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by that mistake, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(i); that is, both that he did not otherwise know of the potential penalty and, as he swore under oath, that “he would not have entered into the plea” — to an extremely…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Baker v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
  2. Mickens v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API