ARMANDO RIVERA, 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.
Armando Rivera appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, claiming he was under psychiatric medication that impaired his understanding of his guilty plea and sentencing. The court affirms the procedure by which the motion was reviewed but reverses the summary denial, finding that a standardized plea form alone cannot conclusively refute his allegations without hearing transcripts.
The court cannot summarily deny the motion without hearing transcripts. A standardized plea form stating the defendant was not under medication to the extent impairing his understanding cannot conclusively bind a defendant who claims under oath he was too medicated to understand the proceedings, particularly when the form predates the sentencing hearing by over two months.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief cannot be summarily denied without attaching portions of the record that conclusively refute the defendant's allegations.
[2] A defendant's claim of being under the influence of medication at the time of a plea hearing may require an evidentiary hearing, even if a plea form contains a representa…
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“Although one of the sixteen standard representations in the plea form states that the defendant is not under the influence of medication to the extent that it impairs his understanding of the plea form, it seems difficult to bind a defendant to this standardized representation when he claims under oath that he was too medicated to understand the proceedings.”
Establishes that a standardized plea form representation cannot conclusively refute a defendant's sworn allegation of medication-induced impairment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRivera pleaded guilty to armed robbery and other charges on April 8, 1993, agreeing to a twelve-year sentence as a habitual offender. He was not sente…
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 Negotiated Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*815] ALTENBERND, Judge.
Armando Rivera 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. The plea form attached to the trial court’s order does not conclusively demonstrate that Mr. Rivera is entitled to no relief.
Mr. Rivera pleaded guilty to armed robbery and numerous other charges. He signed a negotiated plea agreement on April 8, 1993, in which he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a twelve-year sentence as a habitual offender. Although our record does not contain either a judgment or a sentence, it appears that Mr. Rivera was not sentenced until June 25, 1993.
In his motion, Mr. Rivera alleges as grounds one and three that he was under psychiatric medication when he agreed to this plea and that his attorney told him not to mention 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 hearings. Thereafter, it moved the court to order transcripts of the hearings. On October 27,1994, a circuit court judge entered an order requiring the transcripts to be transcribed. However, three days earlier, another judge entered this order summarily denying the motion. The only document attached to refute the allegations was the plea form.
We agree with the state attorney that the motion cannot be adequately resolved without transcripts of the hearings. Although one of the sixteen standard representations in the plea form states that the defendant is not under the influence of medication to the extent that it impairs his understanding of the plea form, it seems difficult to bind a defendant to this standardized representation when he claims under oath that he was too medicated to understand the proceedings. Moreover, a form he signed in April is not dispositive of his claims pertaining to the proceedings held in June.
Because the trial court-failed to attach portions of the records or files conclusively refuting Mr. Rivera’s allegations, 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 transcripts of the hearings, which conclusively refute the allegations. If the record does not refute the 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.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Balko v. State, 934 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ient. From the trial court’s order, it appears that the trial court thought that Mr. Balko was alleging that he was under the influence of these drugs at the time of his plea. See Mungen v. State, 932 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Rivera v. State, 651 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Despite this confusion, [*664] Mr. Balko does not allege a factual basis to establish that his counsel had information requiring him to investigate this issue or that the failure to investigate this issue was prejudicial to him.…
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Rossman v. State, 601 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hull v. State, 601 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)