DARRELL L. CHAPMAN, 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 failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions refuting the allegation that the plea was involuntary due to psychotropic drugs.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was involuntary due to being on psychotropic dru…
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 Psychotropic Drugs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Darrell L. Chapman appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant raised two allegations in his motion.
The trial court was correct in denying appellant’s initial allegation that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
However, appellant’s second allegation that his plea was involuntarily entered into, in that he was on psychotropic drugs and not of a sound mind, if true, may entitle appellant to relief. The trial court, nonetheless, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which refute this allegation.
Accordingly, we reverse in part the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion as to appellant’s second allegation and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on appellant’s second allegation as stated in his motion. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850; see also, Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neeley v. State, 502 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ction relief. We remand this cause to the trial court with directions to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on the grounds raised in appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. See Ream v. State, 449 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Chapman v. State, 444 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). REVERSED and REMANDED. HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)