JERRY R. GUNN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to vacate the plea because the record did not conclusively refute the allegation that the plea was involuntary due to medication.
[1] A plea is involuntary if the defendant's mental faculties are diminished by medication to the extent that they cannot fully understand the significance of the plea.
[2] Summary denial of a motion to vacate is permissible only when the motion and case records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant contended his nolo contendere plea was involuntary because he was under the effect of tranquilizers prescribed by a jail physician. The tria…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.170(J) cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Jerry R. Gunn appeals from an order summarily denying his motion to vacate under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The only allegation in the motion which appears to have any facial merit is Gunn’s contention that he did not enter his plea of nolo contendere voluntarily. He avers that both before and during his appearance in court, he was under the effect of tranquilizers prescribed by a jail physician, and that he would not have entered a nolo contendere plea had his mental faculties not been diminished.
We have reviewed the transcript of Gunn’s plea hearing. Although the trial judge conducted a thorough colloquy to otherwise determine voluntariness, and establish a factual basis for the plea, the transcript of said hearing, read as a whole, does not directly or indirectly refute appellant’s allegation that he was under medication which so diminished his mental capacity as to render his plea involuntary.
We can sustain summary denial of a motion for post conviction relief only where “the motion and the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850; see Merritt v. State, 165 So. 2d 245 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). Since the record in this case does not conclusively refute Gunn’s allegation that his plea was involuntary, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this allegation. For Gunn to prevail, he must present substantial evidence establishing that he was taking tranquilizers at the time he entered his nolo contendere plea and that the tranquilizers’ influence on him prevented him from having a full understanding of the significance of his plea.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision, remand and direct the court to afford Gunn an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his condition at the time of his plea rendered him incapable of fully understanding the significance of the plea and its voluntariness as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(j).
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…. Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We have held that where claims such as this have been made the record must conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations before the court may deny the motion without a hearing. Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In the instant case, the trial court attached a transcript of the plea colloquy to its order denying Campbell’s motion. Prior to accepting the plea the court conducted a brief competency hearing, then, having found Campbell com…
-
Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…utter’s motion does not conclusively refute these allegations. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of these allegations in the motion and remand for further proceedings. See Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Derks v. State, 477 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Reutter is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of t…
-
Long v. State, 678 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ature and consequences of his plea. We must, therefore, remand for attachment of further portions of the record conclusively refuting this claim, or for an evidentiary hearing. See Savage v. State, 530 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). As his second ground, appellant claims that his conviction was obtained in violation of the double jeopardy principles in that he was convicted of two counts of sexual battery arising from one criminal episode. Moreover, appell…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Merritt v. State, 165 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)