DAVID M. REUTTER, 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.
David Reutter appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his guilty plea to capital murder. The court reversed the summary denial of two allegations—that his plea was involuntary due to psychotherapeutic medication and that counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the trial court of the medication's effects—and remanded for further proceedings.
The court held that the two allegations were facially sufficient and could not be summarily denied because the record was not conclusively refuted. The trial court must order the state to file an answer and determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief is facially sufficient if its allegations, if true, would entitle the movant to relief.
[2] A guilty plea may be deemed involuntary if the defendant was under the influence of psychotherapeutic medication and did not understand the proceedings at the time of the…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Of the several allegations for relief in Reutter's motion, only two are facially sufficient. Specifically, Reutter alleges that his guilty plea to capital murder was involuntarily given because he was under the influence of psychotherapeutic medication at the plea hearing and did not understand what he was doing.”
Establishes the two facial sufficiency allegations at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReutter entered a guilty plea to capital murder while attending mental health counseling in the Pasco County jail. Records showed he had been continuo…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Reutter appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Of the several allegations for relief in Reutter’s motion, only two are facially sufficient. Specifically, Reutter alleges that his guilty plea to capital murder was involuntarily given because he was under the influence of psychotherapeutic medication at the plea hearing and did not understand what he was doing. Reutter also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel because he told trial counsel that he was under the effects of this medication, but counsel failed to advise the trial court. The record reveals that Reutter attended mental health counselling sessions while in the Pasco County jail. It also includes medication dispensing reports of the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office which show that Reutter had been given psychotherapeutic medication continuously for several months prior to and including the date on which he entered his guilty plea.
The attachment to the trial court’s summary denial of Reutter’s motion does not conclusively refute these allegations. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of these allegations in the motion and remand for further proceedings. See Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Derks v. State, 477 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Reutter is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute Reutter’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
RYDER, A.C.J., and HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 746 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…r, depression and some form of psychosis. Those records also indicate Rivera experienced auditory hallucinations the entire time he was in detention. We find that Rivera’s motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (citing Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). The trial court denied the motion, relying, in part, on the plea form signed by Rivera and the transcript of the…
-
Williams v. State, 685 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ons of involuntariness, coupled with the corroboration of the medication prescriptions, and the accompanying complaint that trial counsel failed to act when made aware of psychiatric problems, closely resemble the facts outlined in Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). There this court reversed the summary denial of a postconviction relief motion for further attachments, or, if unavailable, an evi-dentiary hearing. Under Reutter, Mr. Williams has made a facially sufficient claim which the recor…
-
Lilley v. State, 667 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ess. One report terms his mental illness “major” and questions Lilley’s competency to proceed. The portions of the record relied upon by the trial court, which we have examined, do not conclusively refute Lilley’s allegations. See Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether Lilley’s plea was compromised by the effects of his prescription dr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Derks v. State, 477 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)