Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

651 So. 2d 176

Turpin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 21, 1995

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-02-21

Relies on 351 So. 2d 957 - Earnest v. State · 639 So. 2d 1050 - Nowlin v. State · Bell v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-02-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2011

3 state decisions

10199520002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ERVIN, Judge.

¶1We reverse the trial court’s denial of Turpin’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although Turpin pled guilty to armed burglary and agreed to a prison sentence with a mandatory three-year minimum for use of a firearm, this did not constitute an admission that he was in actual possession of a firearm. Bell v. State, 589 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A defendant must actually possess the firearm during the crime to be subject to the minimum mandatory. Earnest v. State, 351 So.2d 957 (Fla.1977). The trial court did not inquire at the plea hearing whether there was a factual basis for imposing the minimum mandatory.

¶2In his post-conviction motion, Turpin alleged that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s omission, in that his co-defendant allegedly prepared an affidavit stating that he, and not Turpin, possessed the only firearm used during the robbery. Accordingly, Turpin has raised a prima facie ground for relief. Nowlin v. State, 639 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

¶3REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.
/651/so2d/176 · .json · Public domain