RODNEY SCHENCK, 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's order denying the appellant's motion was erroneous because the attachments did not conclusively refute the claim that his plea was involuntary due to schizophrenia and medication.
Appellant claimed his plea was involuntary due to schizophrenia and psychotropic medication. The plea agreement stated he was treated for hallucinatio…
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 Competency To Enter Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order, denying appellant’s 3.850 motion, and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of record excerpts disproving appellant’s claim that his plea was rendered involuntary by his schizophrenia and/or the psychotropic medication he was receiving for that condition. The order and present attachments thereto do not conclusively refute appellant’s argument that his mental condition and/or his medication rendered him unable to comprehend the change of plea proceedings.
Appellant’s written plea agreement, attached to the order of denial, disclosed that at the time he entered his plea, he was being treated for hallucinations. In his current motion, the appellant claims that the drugs that he was taking to control his schizophrenia — thorazine and cogentin — left him mentally confused and unable to comprehend the trial court’s questions. Appellant claims that he is still suffering from the effects of his illness and the medications used to control it.
The trial court denied relief on the appellant’s claim that he was rendered unable to enter a voluntary plea by his mental condition and/or the medications being used to treat that condition. It based that denial upon appellant’s assertions in his written plea agreement that:
[pre-printed] I was previously found to be insane or incompetent or was a mental patient. I am now competent and in possession of all my 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schenck v. State, 662 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…PARIENTE, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. In Schenck v. State, 654 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we reversed the summary denial of this defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief. We remanded for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of record excerpts disproving defendant’s claim that his plea was rendered involuntary by…
-
Howard v. State, 695 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ance is without prejudice to appellant filing a properly sworn and timely motion pursuant to rule 3.850 alleging facts legally sufficient to establish that appellant’s mental state rendered her unable to enter a voluntary plea. See Schenck v. State, 654 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).…
-
Sylvette Barreto v. State, 50 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…to elicit her opinion regarding her mental state when she 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, 86…
Authorities Cited
- Rossman v. State, 601 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hull v. State, 601 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)