Case Name: Jose MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-07-14
Citations: 402 So. 2d 29
Docket Number: No. 80-2002
Parties: Jose MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 402
Pages: 29–29

Head Matter:
Jose MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 80-2002.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 14, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 1, 1981.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The trial judge denied the defendant's Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion without an evi-dentiary hearing. The record before us does not conclusively refute the motion's sworn allegations (a) that he was given erroneous advice by appointed counsel concerning the non-existence, under the law, of his alleged defense of self-defense to the charges against him, see State v. Lyles, 316 So.2d 277 (Fla.1975); Giles v. State, 363 So.2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); and (b) that, in pleading guilty, he was not informed and did not understand that he was waiving his right to trial by jury. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Weeks, 166 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1964); Sharp v. State, 303 So.2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Clark v. State, 256 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Therefore, the order under review is reversed in part and the cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on these issues alone.
. We repeat our admonition in Giles v. State, 363 So.2d 164, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) as to the consequences of a determination that any of these statements were untrue.
. The other grounds in the motion were refuted by the contents of the plea colloquy.