Court Opinion

ID: 9682404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:10:51.322465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:39.122363
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Judge,
dissenting.
I wholeheartedly embrace the admonishment of my Brother, the Presiding Judge, that:
“... Trial participants in situations as described above would do well to have the record reflect that the defendant was advised as a part of the plea bargain that the state court has no authority or control over the federal sentence, and that the defendant understands that running the state sentence concurrently with the federal sentence does not mean that the federal sentence will automatically or always run concurrently with the state sentence.”
I write only to point out that the majority today grants applicant relief on a record totally devoid of any evidence to support his allegations. As noted in Judge Onion’s opinion, no hearing was held relative to applicant’s allegations. There was no testimony from any trial official and only applicant’s pleadings are considered by the majority in granting the relief — even in the face of the trial court’s findings to the contrary.
Instead, the majority finds that the “record reflects” facts which support their conclusion. This “record” is composed of unsupported, hearsay documents attached to applicant’s petition. To conclude from this “record” that applicant was misled is to elevate pleading to the status of evidence. To the adoption of such a rule, I must vigorously dissent.
I would order the trial court to hold a hearing and forward the record of same to this Court. If it be shown that applicant is thereafter entitled to relief, then at that time, and not now, the majority rule could be adopted.
W.C. DAVIS and WHITE, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.