JUAN RODRIGUEZ, 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 proper procedure to assert a claim of mental incapacity at the time of a guilty plea is a motion to vacate under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Rodriguez entered a guilty plea while under the influence of drugs, medications, or alcohol, and later sought to withdraw the plea alleging he did not…
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 Tolling Of Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Juan Rodriguez challenges the lower court’s refusal to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea on grounds of mental incapacity. We affirm without prejudice to file a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
In 1991, the state filed two informations against Rodriguez, charging a total of four felony counts. On October 21, 1991, Rodriguez entered a guilty plea. His written plea stated he was under the influence of drugs, medications or alcohol. The transcripts of the plea hearing and the sentencing hearing show that the trial judge did not ask Rodriguez any questions to ascertain whether his plea was voluntary. The court adjudicated him guilty and pronounced sentence on December 3, 1991.
On January 27, 1992, Rodriguez filed a motion to withdraw his plea, alleging that he had not understood his plea because of the drugs he had been taking. The motion did not conform to the specifications of rule 3.850. The trial court denied the motion and Rodriguez appealed.
The proper way for Rodriguez to assert this claim is by a motion to vacate the plea under rule 3.850. See Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Because he has not followed the correct procedure, we affirm the court’s denial of his motion without reaching the merits. Our affirmance is without prejudice to Rodriguez to file a motion that complies with the requirements of rule 3.850. We note that although two years have passed since the date of his conviction, his appeal tolled the time for filing such a motion. See McCuiston v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1988).
Affirmed.
PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Szeremi v. State, 862 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…evelopmental disability and was under the influence of psychotropic medication at the time he entered the plea. If true, this could constitute grounds to withdraw the plea. Rivera v. State, 746 So. 2d 542, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Rodriguez v. State, 652 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). When a defendant asserts a facially sufficient claim that his plea is involuntary because of his mental condition at the time he entered the plea, the court may summarily deny the claim only if the record conclusively refut…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hall, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1988)
- McCUISTON v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)