Carter v. State (752 So. 2d 725, 2000)

PER CURIAM.

James E. Carter appeals an order denying his motion for postconvietion relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

In point one of his postconvietion motion, defendant-appellant Carter contends that, prior to entering into his plea agreement in the instant case, he was advised by his trial counsel that the sentence would run concurrently with the time he would be ordered to serve on his then-pending conditional release violation. In fact, defendant’s sentences are consecutive. The record does not conclusively refute this claim of affirmative misadvice by counsel. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235, 237 (Fla.1996); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(i). We remand for an evidentiary hearing on that issue only. We concur with the trial court that the record conclusively refutes the remainder of appellant’s claims.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.