CARLOS RUIZ, 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.
Carlos Ruiz appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to establish a factual basis for the plea, and a language barrier problem with the interpreter used during the plea colloquy. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to address the interpreter allegation with either supplemental records or an evidentiary hearing.
The court held that the ineffective assistance claim lacked merit based on the plea colloquy, and the failure to establish factual basis claim was without merit absent showing of prejudice or manifest injustice. However, regarding the interpreter allegation, the trial court must either attach records refuting it or conduct an evidentiary hearing because the record indicated an interpreter was present but showed no indication the interpreter was actually used.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is refuted and without merit when the plea colloquy demonstrates the defendant's understanding.
[2] A defendant's claim of the state's failure to establish a factual basis for a plea will be affirmed absent a showing of prejudice or manifest injustice.
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 intelligence“This is an appeal from a summary denial of a motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 3.850 Fla.R.Crim.P.”
Establishes the nature of the appeal and the procedural posture of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuiz entered a guilty plea with an interpreter present during the plea colloquy. Ruiz claimed the interpreter was not used properly, did not understan…
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 Factual Basis For Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*69] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary denial of a motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 3.850 Fla.R.Crim.P.
The defendant’s first claim is of ineffective assistance of counsel. This is refuted by the plea colloquy and therefore is without merit. See Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981). The defendant’s second claim is of failure to establish a factual basis for the plea. There is no showing in the record that the state submitted any facts whatsoever to support the plea. The state contends, and we agree, that there was no allegation of prejudice or manifest injustice in this regard, (as shown by the indictment and the defendant’s admissions in a subsequently filed motion to mitigate) thus the trial court will be affirmed. See State v. Kendrick 336 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975); Fitzpatrick v. State, 414 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The final point alleged that the defendant pleaded guilty through an interpreter who he did not fully understand and who pleaded him guilty to second degree murder when the interpreter knew the defendant did not intend to plead guilty to second degree murder but intended to plead guilty to manslaughter. While the record of the plea colloquy indicates an interpreter was present there is no indication that he was used and there is nothing to refute this allegation. The state admits this deficiency. This cause is hereby returned to the trial court to attach to its summary denial the records refuting the allegation or to conduct an evidentiary hearing thereon.
Therefore the order under review is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to attach to any summary denial the record refuting allegations as they may relate to the understanding of the interpreter or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Any order entered thereon or thereafter is to be reviewable by a new appeal. Lambert v. State, 446 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Bunyan L. Kendrick, Jr., 336 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1976)
- Borri v. Siverson, 336 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1976)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 414 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Jones v. State, 446 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Lambert v. State, 446 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)