From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ream v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Mar 2, 1983
426 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. 82-833.

March 2, 1983.

Rule 3.850 appeal from Circuit Court, Okeechobee County; G. Kendall Sharp, Judge.

Bernard Berman of Roderman Berman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Max Rudmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


The defendants appeal denial of their 3.850 motions. The record is extremely cloudy and it appears that the denial of these motions occurred without an evidentiary hearing. The 3.850 motions attack defendants' three-year sentences on the grounds that they were not in compliance with a negotiated plea agreement for probation only. The 3.850 motions also assert that no court reporter was present at the time of the change of plea. In this respect the mandatory provisions of Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(j) should be noted.

After reviewing the cloudy record in this case, we conclude that the defendants were at least entitled to present evidence in support of their 3.850 motions, and the order of the court denying the motions is vacated. The matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ream v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Mar 2, 1983
426 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Ream v. State

Case Details

Full title:CURTIS REAM AND DONALD REAM, APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Mar 2, 1983

Citations

426 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

Ream v. State

This cause is here for the second time after a remand to permit the defendants, in view of the cloudy record,…