ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

WILLIS, BEN C. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

In considering the State's motion for rehearing, it appears that there is some language which may be misleading and confusing. Desiring to clarify that which was intended, the said motion is hereby granted and the opinion now appearing in Gust v. State, 14 F.L.W. 2768 (Fla. 1st DCA December 1, 1989) is hereby withdrawn. Substituted is the opinion herein which expresses the findings and rulings intended as follows:

Appellant appeals an order reaffirming and adhering to a prior order which denied his pro se Rule 3.850 motion for post conviction relief. We reverse and remand.

In 1985 appellant pled nolo contendere to armed robbery for which he received 15 years imprisonment. On June 5, 1986, appellant filed a Rule 3.850 motion alleging that he was ineffectively represented by counsel in that the key-chain knife appellant asserts he used in the robbery was not a weapon under section 790.001(13), Florida Statutes (1985), and thus he should not have been advised to plead nolo contendere to armed robbery.

On June 10, 1986, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing stating that the record revealed that the defendant entered a written plea of no contest, that he acknowledged the plea was in his best interest, and that he bargained for the 15-year sentence.

This order was reversed and remanded because the trial court did not attach the portions of the files and records conclusively showing the defendant was entitled to no relief. Gust v. State, 504 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

The trial court then issued an order which reiterated the findings set out in its June 10, 1986 denial of appellant's motion, adding that appellant acknowledged that he was satisfied with the services and advice of his attorney. To this order the trial court attached the original transcript of the sentencing proceedings together with the plea waiver and consent form. Appellant did not appeal this order.

On August 5, 1987, appellant filed another Rule 3.850 motion which the trial court denied without a hearing, stating that the grounds raised in the motion were the same as those raised in appellant's June 1986 motion, except for another ground which could have or should have been raised on direct appeal. Appellant appealed from the denial of his second motion and in Gust v. State, 535 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ( Gust II) this court reversed and remanded, finding that although the grounds stated in the previous motion may have been substantially identical to the grounds stated in the subsequent motion, the trial court's denial of the subsequent motion failed to attach the order and its attachments relating to the previous motion. This opinion was filed December 15, 1988.

On January 23, 1989, the trial court issued an order with attachments of all the foregoing orders and attachments from the Gust cases. This order essentially reiterated the findings made in its previous orders addressing Gust's motions. However, before the January 23, 1989 order was rendered, appellant had filed a motion for rehearing in this court on December 27, 1988 which this court denied January 25, 1989. On February 8, 1989, appellant filed a motion to quash the trial court's January 23, 1989 order as premature, which this court granted March 1, 1989.

On April 7, 1989, the trial court rendered an order following this court's mandate on Gust II. That order reaffirms and adopts the trial court's January 23, 1989 order, however, once again, there are no attachments and no attachments appear in the record, i.e., the April 7, 1989 order appealed from does not have an attachment of the January 23, 1989 order which it adopts and neither the January 23 order nor its attachments appear in the record.

We consider the merits of this appeal, despite the lack of attachments in support of the trial court's April 7, 1989 order, to avoid visiting on appellant delays that he is powerless to avoid. We do so only because the portions of the record that the trial court relied upon are available to this court by virtue of the trial court's attempted compliance with the mandate in Gust II. See Mauldin v. State, 382 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (in which the court declined to reverse for failure to attach a supporting record or file on the basis that it was able to obtain the record from appellant's prior appeal).

Section 790.001(13), Florida Statutes (1985), excludes "a common pocketknife" from its definition of "weapon." However, the validity of an armed robbery charge under section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1985), does not necessarily turn on whether the weapon used meets the definitional criteria of section 790.001(13). See Streetman v. State, 455 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We believe the definition of "weapon" most pertinent to an armed robbery charge is found in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions for armed robbery: "A `weapon' is legally defined to mean any object that could be used to cause death or inflict serious bodily harm." Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, p. 156a (2d ed. 1989) (emphasis added). In Streetman the trial court determined that the fake plastic explosive used in the robbery could not be shown to be capable of causing death or great bodily harm, and thus entered judgment of acquittal as to the charge of robbery with a deadly weapon. However, it permitted the State to proceed with the case as to the lesser included offense of robbery with a weapon, declining to instruct the jury on the standard armed robbery jury instruction regarding the definition of "weapon", and instead instructed the jury on the definition of "weapon" as set forth in section 790.001(13). The Second District reversed appellant's judgment and sentence for robbery with a weapon because "[i]t appears clear that each of the devices enumerated in section 709.001(13) [sic] has the actual ability to cause death or inflict bodily harm . . . [and] the composition of the bomb and its explosive characteristics was simply insufficient to permit the jury lawfully to conclude that the device possessed any capacity to inflict harm." Id. at 1082. The court continued, however, that

Florida courts have utilized the statutory definition of "weapon" provided in section 790.001(13) to determine whether a particular object constitutes a "weapon" for purposes of section 812.13(2)(b). See, e.g., Depasquale v. State, 438 So.2d 159, 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Hartman v. State, 403 So.2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); McCray v. State, 358 So.2d 615, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Under this approach, a device used in the course of a robbery qualifies as a "weapon" only if it is either one of the objects specifically delineated in the statute or a "deadly weapon.

[l]anguage in the introductory paragraph of Subsection 790.001 indicates that the meanings thereafter established shall apply "for the purposes of this chapter;" however, we do not consider that language to limit use of the definitions exclusively to chapter 790, particularly where common sense dictates that a definition set forth there may have perfectly reasonable application elsewhere.

In light of the foregoing, even if appellant only had a key-chain knife, the fact that such is excluded from "weapon" status under section 790.001(13) does not, of itself, preclude a finding that he committed armed robbery, i.e., robbery with a weapon.

However, the factual allegations made in appellant's motion, on its face, raise questions concerning whether defense counsel effectively represented appellant by advising him to enter a plea under circumstances which, if the allegations are true, there may have existed no factual basis for the plea entered. We acknowledge at the outset that appellant did not argue in his motion that there was no factual basis for his plea to armed robbery. Nevertheless we do not consider his failure to so specify necessitates that relief be denied. Although 3.850(a)-(f) requires movants, inter alia, to inform the court of the nature of the relief sought and of the facts relied upon, the rule does not refer to arguments or their sufficiency. Pro se motions are traditionally "accorded liberal interpretation . . . to effect justice and afford the [movant] . . . the advantage denied him by his lack of legal training. . . ." Thomas v. State, 164 So.2d 857, fn. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). In considering motions for post conviction relief,

[t]he judge is not required to limit his decision on the first motion to the grounds narrowly alleged, or to deny the motion out-of-hand because the allegations are vague, conclusional, or inartistically expressed. He is free to adopt any appropriate means for inquiry into the legality of the prisoner's detention in order to ascertain all possible grounds upon which the prisoner might claim to be entitled to relief.

If, as appellant contends, he informed his defense counsel that all he had used was a key-chain knife during the commission of the robbery, then an effective defense counsel would in our judgment have explored the matter further. In asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show a specific omission or overt act which demonstrates prejudice "to the extent that there is a likelihood that the deficient conduct affected the outcome of the court proceedings." Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997, 1001 (Fla. 1981). More particularly, "[t]o prevail and set aside a nolo contendere or guilty plea alleging ineffectiveness of original trial counsel, a defendant must show that he, in fact, had a `viable' defense." Diaz v. State, 534 So.2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). If appellant's assertion in the case at bar is true, his attorney's failure to act on that information, i.e., ascertain the veracity of the assertion and its relevance, may have affected the outcome of the plea and sentence entered, by, among other things, precluding appellant's plea to a lesser offense. Ignoring the nature of the "arm" in recommending a nolo contendere plea to armed robbery would be markedly deficient conduct which, we consider, goes to the very heart of whether appellant's plea was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. See generally Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). And, if appellant's assertion is true, he may have established a viable defense to armed robbery — that the object he carried could not have been used to cause death or serious bodily harm.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(a) requires trial judges, before accepting pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, to satisfy themselves that the plea is voluntary and that there is a factual basis for it. The rule further states that defense counsel and the prosecution shall assist the judge in this vital function. Generally, the rule "may be complied with by receiving evidence, testimony, a proffer of evidence, statements by counsel or the defendant, or reference to the record sufficient to satisfy the court that there is evidence to convict on each element of the charge." Williams v. State, 534 So.2d 929, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). If, however, the court fails to make a complete inquiry or to receive a complete proffer, its failure will not generally result in reversal without a corresponding showing of prejudice. Id. The trial court below denied appellant's post-conviction motions without a hearing and referred to his plea, waiver and consent form, and the plea and sentence transcript. Nothing in these items, however, discloses that the court satisfied itself that there was a factual basis for armed robbery. What was developed at the plea and sentence hearing was that appellant said he understood the charges and desired to plead no contest to the charge of armed robbery with a deadly weapon and that he was otherwise satisfied with his defense counsel. There was no mention during the plea and sentence hearing relating to the nature of the weapon used in the robbery, and nothing is disclosed in the plea, waiver and consent form in this regard either. It does not appear from our review of the record that the trial court received evidence, or a statement from counsel or the defendant, or otherwise complied with its duty to satisfy itself that the plea was both voluntary and that there was a satisfactory basis for it. See Williams, supra. Indeed, the rule is well established "that a defendant should be allowed to withdraw a plea of guilty where the plea is based upon a misunderstanding or misapprehension of facts considered by the defendant in making the plea." Forbert v. State, 437 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 1983). See also Britt v. State, 352 So.2d 148, 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). On the record before us we cannot conclude that the appellant was not prejudiced by the actions of his attorney.

Therefore, because the record, as we have divined it, does not conclusively refute the allegations contained in appellant's motion, e.g., Pate v. State, 547 So.2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), we reverse and remand its summary denial and direct that further proceedings be conducted in accordance with Rule 3.850 to resolve the factual issue created by appellant's allegations. Roberts v. State, 537 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (where appellant's 3.850 motion created factual issues, summary denial was reversed and remanded for resolution either by attachment of the supporting record or by evidentiary hearing).

ERVIN, J., concurs.

NIMMONS, J., dissents, with opinion.