Case Name: Charles MOGFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-09-15
Citations: 883 So. 2d 340
Docket Number: No. 4D03-3735
Parties: Charles MOGFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 883
Pages: 340–340

Head Matter:
Charles MOGFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D03-3735.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 15, 2004.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 2004.
Benedict P. Kuehne and Susan Dmitrov-sky of Sale & Kuehne, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
No appearance required for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant's 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, which was summarily denied, asserted that his counsel was ineffective for having misadvised him as to the maximum sentence he could receive and other things which induced him to plead guilty. Attached to his motion was his trial counsel's response to the complaint appellant made to the Florida Bar. Counsel's response refuted appellant's allegations of misadvise; however, the response, which was not sworn, was not part of the record. Accordingly, the court should not have relied on the response to refute appellant's factual allegations. Gholston v. State, 648 So.2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Flores v. State, 662 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Reversed.
WARNER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.