Court Opinion

ID: 2738747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-01 15:03:24.083345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:03:57.833606
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM,
 

  Joan Cramer appeals the summary denial of her rule 3.850 motion, alleging that the State failed to make sentencing recommendations pursuant to the terms of a substantial assistance agreement, which was agreed upon prior to entry of her plea. The State alleged that it was not obligated to fulfill the agreement in light of Cram-er’s failure to appear at her first sentencing hearing. Both parties state that the substantial assistance agreement was memorialized on tape. Because that agreement is not part of this Court’s record, nor were the terms discussed during the plea hearing or shown in the written plea agreement, the record does not refute her allegations. We reverse and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record refuting her claim or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
 

   Reversed and Remanded.
  

  DAMOORGIAN, C.J., STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.