MICHAEL DAVID HULL, 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 summarily denying the motion for postconviction relief based solely on the written plea form, as it did not conclusively refute the appellant's allegations regarding psychotropic medication.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to postconviction relief if they were under the influence of psychotropic medication when entering a guilty plea and counsel failed to advise…
[2] A written plea form alone does not conclusively refute allegations that a defendant was incapable of knowingly and voluntarily entering a plea due to medication.
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 intelligenceAppellant alleged he was under the influence of psychotropic medication when he entered his guilty plea, rendering it unknowing and involuntary, and t…
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 Medication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael David Hull appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Only his allegations pertaining to psychotropic medication have merit.
Appellant alleges that he was under the influence of psychotropic medication at the time he entered his guilty plea and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise the court. He claims that on the day of his plea, he was given another medication, tho-racine, which reacted with the medication 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, particularly in view of the fact that appellant attached to his motion medical documents from the jail indicating that various medications had been prescribed and administered for a prior spinal injury. The documents also show that thoracine had been prescribed and administered the day he entered his plea.
Because the trial court failed to attach portions of the records or files conclusively refuting appellant’s allegation, we reverse as to the allegations set forth above. Should the trial court again deny the motion on remand, it should attach portions of the record, particularly the transcript of the plea dialogue, which conclusively refute both allegations. If the record does not refute appellant’s allegations, it may be necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schenck v. State, 654 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…faculties. Explain: [handwritten] [defendant] treated for hallucinations currently by Dr. Tinzlef?] [pre-printed] I am not currently under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The above statements are equivocal and contradictory. See Hull v. State, 601 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.…
-
Rivera v. State, 651 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…n this medication to the court. He claims that the medication prevented him from understanding what was happening at the hearing. The trial court properly requested a response from the state attorney before ruling on this motion. See Hull v. State, 601 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The state attorney responded and requested an extension of time in which to obtain transcripts of the plea and sentencing…
-
Sylvette Barreto v. State, 50 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…he had just told the Court that the medication clouds her judgment. The assurances provided by the Appellant that her mental state was clear were “equivocal and contradictory” Schenck v. State, 654 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see Hull v. State, 601 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). [*739] The Appellant’s statements contradict also the written plea form, which states “I am not under the influence of alcohol or any drug at this time.” Szeremi v. State, 862 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). (Internal record cita…
Authorities Cited
- Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Schuck v. State, 495 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)