JAMES STEVEN SLATER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by affirming the summary denial of post-conviction relief without applying the correct standard of review.
[1] A summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief is reversible error unless the record conclusively shows the appellant is entitled to no relief.
[2] An appellate court reviewing a summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief must reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing if the record does not conclusivel…
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 intelligencePetitioner pleaded no contest to criminal mischief without an attorney, later moving to withdraw his plea alleging medication impaired his understandi…
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
James Slater petitions this court for certiorari and seeks review of a denial of his motion for post-conviction relief in county court, which was affirmed by the circuit court acting in its appellate capacity. We have jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(B); Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const. We grant the petition and quash the circuit court’s opinion.
In 1987 Slater, who was not represented by an attorney, pleaded no contest* to a charge of criminal mischief, and a county judge sentenced him to ten days in jail. The next day Slater filed a motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and sought to withdraw his plea. In his motion, Slater alleged that he was taking medication at the time of the plea which impaired his ability to understand the consequences of the plea. The county judge denied the motion, observing in his order that he reviewed the file and heard the plea. No attachments accompanied the order. Slater appealed to circuit court, arguing that the record did not show conclusively that he was entitled to no relief in that his claim of impaired mental state was not rebutted. The circuit court affirmed the trial court’s order, because it found that Slater “failed to provide a record to establish that the trial court erred in denying the motion for post-conviction relief.”
Slater now has petitioned this court for certiorari review, arguing that the circuit court’s failure to apply the appropriate standard of review entitles him to relief. We agree.
In order for Slater to be entitled to relief by writ of certiorari, he must demonstrate that the court below departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983). The state concedes both that there was a record and that the circuit court erred in affirming the denial of relief on the basis of the absence of a record. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 provides:
Appeals from Summary Denial of Motion for Post-Conviction Relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. An appeal from an order denying relief under Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850 without a hearing shall be commenced as prescribed by Rule 9.110. The clerk of the lower tribunal shall forthwith transmit to the court as the record conformed copies of the motion, order, motion for rehearing and order thereon, with a certified copy of the notice. No briefs or oral argument shall be required. Unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The court may request a response from the State before ruling.
Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g) (emphasis added). The state further concedes that based upon this court’s holding in Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), Slater’s motion for post-conviction relief is sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing, although the state suggests we reevaluate the Gunn decision in light of Sturgis v. Goldsmith, 796 F. 2d 1103 (9th Cir.1986). We decline to do so.
The bottom line in this case is that once Slater filed his motion for post-conviction relief in county court, unless that motion and the files and records conclusively showed that Slater was entitled to no relief, the county judge was required to order the state attorney to respond to the petition and then determine the need or lack of need for an evidentiary hearing before ruling upon Slater’s motion. Because we find that Slater may have alleged a claim for relief based on Gunn, the county judge’s summary denial of the motion was error. Further, we find the circuit court erred in its order, because there was a record transmitted to it on appeal, and the record, based upon Gunn, does not show conclusively that Slater is entitled to no relief. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g).
We conclude that Slater has satisfied the Combs test by showing that the court below departed from the essential requirements of the law. Accordingly, we grant Slater’s petition for certiorari and quash the circuit court’s opinion. We remand this matter to the circuit court to enter an opinion which directs the county court to order the state attorney to respond to the allegations contained in Slater’s motion and then determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. *
In his motion for post-conviction relief, Slater alleged his plea was no contest. In his appeal to circuit court, Slater alleged his plea was guilty.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)…v. Kuehnel, 542 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review denied, 548 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1989); post-Combs cases: State v. Frazee, 617 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Horatio Enterprises, Inc. v. Rabin, 614 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Slater v. State, 543 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). . One critic has noted: Some errors are so fundamental as to clearly fall within the term; others clearly do not fall [*531] within any reasonable interpretation. The vagueness of the phrase, however, means that there is a larg…
-
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 647 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…court. E.g., State v. Frazee, 617 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Horatio Enter., Inc. v. Rabin, 614 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Krebs v. State, 588 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 599 [*857] So. 2d 658 (Fla.1992); Slater v. State, 543 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). These factors, as well as the critical fact that Education Development Center, Inc. did not even refer to Combs, leads us to conclude that Combs ’ standard of review is still the law we must apply when determining whether to gr…
-
Campbell v. State, 65 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…attery. We deny the petition. A final circuit court decision in its appellate capacity, including a decision denying a defendant’s postconviction motion, is reviewable in the district court by petition for writ of certiorari. E.g., Slater v. State, 543 So. 2d 869, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The standard of review for such a petition is whether the petitioner has been denied procedural due process, or whether the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in such a way as to cause a miscarriag…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Sturgis v. Goldsmith, 796 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1986)