RAFAEL GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Rafael Gonzalez appealed the trial court's summary denial of his post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing that prescribed psychotropic medications administered during incarceration impaired his mental condition and ability to assist in his defense at trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions conclusively refuting his assertions.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without either conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record that conclusively showed appellant was entitled to no relief. On remand, the trial court must either again summarily deny with conclusive record materials attached, or conduct an evidentiary hearing and rule on the motion.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to post-conviction relief if, at the time of trial, prescribed medication administered during incarceration could have rendered the defendant…
[2] A trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions that conclusively refute a defendant's assertions when summarily denying a motion for p…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The contention here is that at the time of trial appellant was under the influence of prescribed medication administered while he was incarcerated which could have caused an alteration in his mental condition to the extent that he was unable to make rational decisions or otherwise assist in the preparation of a defense.”
Establishes the core allegation in the post-conviction motion regarding medication-induced impairment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was taking multiple psychotropic medications at trial: Serentil 200 mg twice daily, Cogentin 2 mg once daily, Benedryl 50 mg once daily, and…
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 Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The contention here is that at the time of trial appellant was under the influence of prescribed medication administered while he was incarcerated which could have caused an alteration in his mental condition to the extent that he was unable to make rational decisions or otherwise assist in the preparation of a defense. He alleges that during the trial he was taking Serentil (a major tranquilizer) 200 mg. twice a day, Cogentin 2 mg. once a day, Benedryl 50 mg. once a day, and Thorazine 200 mg. three times a day.
The record reflects that appellant abandoned the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity on November 3, 1980, shortly before trial. Also in the record is a letter written by the physician who treated appellant at South Florida State Hospital confirming that at some time prior to trial he had prescribed and supervised the administration of the same type of medication, and opining that if the Thorazine medication had continued through the time of trial in such dosage as is ordinarily prescribed, then appellant would have been unable to assist in the preparation of a defense. Because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s assertions, we are unable to determine whether denial of the relief was proper. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the motion. Wilson v. State, 430 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barfield v. Barfield, 472 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…the matter. Cf. Oatsvall v. State, 453 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (where criminal defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief is facially sufficient, it is error to summarily deny the motion without an evi-dentiary hearing); Gonzalez v. State, 451 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (same). Cf Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Stuart, 301 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (a judgment cannot stand if there is no competent substantial evidence to support it). If, following the hearing, it is established that the mone…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 510 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ulted in affirmance. Gonzalez v. State, 432 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (issues regarding indictment defect and improper jury instruction not properly raised in 3.850 motion; denial of motion after evidentiary hearing affirmed); Gonzalez v. State, 451 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (motion’s allegation that defendant had been rendered by medication unable to assist in preparation of his defense at trial required trial court to either attach record portions conclusively refuting allegation or conduct an evide…
-
Jethro Pitts v. State, 454 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…reversed and remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing, or for the purpose of attaching portions of the record which show conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. State, 451 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Walker v. State, 432 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). I would, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 430 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)