Wright v. State

Wright v. State, 583 So. 2d 399 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: July 29, 1991
Docket: No. 91-220
Judges: Kahn
Citations: 583 So. 2d 3991991 WL 138140

Cited by 6

Opinion

583 So.2d 399 (1991)

Frank A. WRIGHT, Appellant,

STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 91-220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 29, 1991.

*400 Frank A. Wright, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

KAHN, Judge.

Wright appeals the trial court's summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Appellant, who entered a negotiated plea of guilty to a charge of sale or delivery of cocaine, contends that prior to entry of the plea, he "was not instructed properly by counsel as to the restriction of basic gain time and provisional release credits, which are extended to most nonhabitualized inmates." We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition and distinguish our recent decision in Rackley v. State, 571 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

The petitioner in Rackley affirmatively alleged that he had been given erroneous and misleading information concerning nonavailability of gain time, and specifically contended that court-appointed counsel informed petitioner that, even as an habitual offender, he would actually serve about four years of a ten year sentence. On these facts we held that Rackley's 3.850 petition could not be summarily dismissed, since the sparse record before the court in that case did not conclusively refute Rackley's allegations. In the present case, however, the petitioner does not allege that he was affirmatively misled by counsel. See, Tarpley v. State, 566 So.2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Netherly v. State, 508 So.2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Ray v. State, 480 So.2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Since it may not be said in the present case that Wright, in deciding whether to enter a plea, relied upon affirmative erroneous advice regarding the effect of gain time and similar provisions, we conclude that the trial court correctly dismissed the 3.850 motion.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts6

Relies on it most ⓘ

Levens v. State598 So. 2d 120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Eady v. State604 So. 2d 559 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Simmons v. State611 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
State v. Will645 So. 2d 91 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Henderson v. State626 So. 2d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Cherry v. State618 So. 2d 255 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Most recent

State v. Will645 So. 2d 91 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Henderson v. State626 So. 2d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Cherry v. State618 So. 2d 255 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Eady v. State604 So. 2d 559 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Simmons v. State611 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Levens v. State598 So. 2d 120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Rackley v. State, 571 So. 2d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)	20
	Ray v. State, 480 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)	24
	Tarpley v. State, 566 So. 2d 914 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)	20
	Netherly v. State, 508 So. 2d 524 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list