Winfrey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 23, 2017

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2017-08-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 2018

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The trial court failed to rule on Winfrey's claim within ground one that counsel failed to advise him, before he entered an open plea, that the court could impose consecutive sentences. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider that claim.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including JAMES M. LECLAIRE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Relies on 162 So. 3d 64 - Kenneth N. Hebert v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2017-08-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Donnie Winfrey appeals the summary denial of his amended rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The trial court failed to rule on Winfrey’s claim within ground one that counsel failed to advise him, be*898fore he entered an open plea, that the court could impose consecutive sentences. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider that claim. See, e.g., Hebert v. State, 162 So.3d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). We affirm the denial of Winfrey’s other claims.

¶2Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

Damoorgian, Ciklin and Levine, JJ., concur.