
    Alexis GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D04-591.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 23, 2005.
    Louis Casuso, Miami, for appellant.
    
      Charles J. Crist, Jr. Attorney General, and Annette M. Lizardo, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
    Before COPE, C.J., and LEVY and CORTIÑAS, JJ.
   CORTIÑAS, Judge.

Defendant, Alexis Gonzalez, appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief. Among other things, the defendant claims he is entitled to postconviction relief on the ground that he entered into a plea with the understanding that the charges in this case would be reduced so as to not adversely affect his federal custody classification. However, contrary to Gonzalez’s claim, the transcript of his plea hearing clearly indicates that the defendant and the State agreed that Gonzalez would be sentenced to thirty years in State prison to run concurrent and coterminous with his federal sentence in Case No. 93-10004-CR-KING. There was also an understanding that the defendant would receive credit for time served from the date of his arrest to the date of sentencing. Twice during the plea hearing these terms were explained to the defendant by the court and twice the defendant agreed that this was his understanding of the plea agreement. Because the record conclusively refutes the defendant’s claim, he is not entitled to postcon-viction relief.

LEVY, J., concurs.

COPE, C.J.

(dissenting in part).

I would reverse in part the order denying postconviction relief and remand for further proceedings solely on the defendant’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea which appears to allege that his plea is involuntary. He claims that he entered into a negotiated plea on state charges to be concurrent with his federal sentence, on the understanding that the state charges would be reduced so as not to adversely affect his federal custody classification. He claims that in reality his plea to burglary charges will adversely affect his federal custody status. Because the record does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claims, I would remand for an evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). It is, of course, not clear from the present record that the defendant’s premise regarding his federal custody status is correct or that he will ultimately be entitled to any relief, but because the present record does not conclusively refute his claim, he is entitled to a hearing.  