STEVEN JAMES SCHUCK, 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 denying the appellant's claim that his guilty plea was involuntary due to psychotropic drugs, as this issue was not previously litigated.
Steven James Schuck appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, alleging his guilty plea was involuntary due to psychotropic…
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
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Steven James Schuck appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-convic tion relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Appellant alleges three separate grounds in his motion. The first is that his plea of guilty was not knowingly or voluntarily given because he was mentally incompetent as a result of the administration of psychotropic drugs by the jail medical authorities. If true, this might entitle appellant to post-conviction relief. Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
The trial judge denied this point of the motion on the ground that the issue was litigated on direct appeal. The record of the direct appeal reveals that the issue was not raised and was properly before the trial court in the motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant’s remaining grounds alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process were properly denied by the trial court.
Accordingly, we reverse in part the denial of appellant’s motion. On remand, the court may either again summarily deny the motion as to the allegations specified above and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show appellant is not entitled to relief or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the grounds. In the event the trial court again denies the motion, appellant must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
SANDERLIN, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F. (Ret.), J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hull v. State, 601 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ation he was then taking in such a way as to render him incapable of knowingly and voluntarily entering a plea. If true, appellant might be entitled to postconviction relief. See Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Schuck v. State, 495 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In denying the motion, the trial court attached only the written plea form. This attachment, standing alone, does not conclusively refute the appellant’s allegations, particular…
Authorities Cited
- Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)