ROBERT MARK LILLEY, 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.
Lilley appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his no contest plea, alleging he was under the influence of psychotropic medication and received ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing because the record does not conclusively refute his allegations regarding medication impairment and the trial court's failure to adequately inquire into his mental status and drug use.
The court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether Lilley's plea was compromised by the effects of his prescription drugs. The portions of the record examined by the court do not conclusively refute Lilley's allegations regarding medication-induced impairment.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief when the portions of the record relied upon by the trial court do not conclusively…
[2] A trial court must inquire into the nature and extent of a defendant's mental health issues and medication use when such issues are raised during a plea hearing.
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“The portions of the record relied upon by the trial court, which we have examined, do not conclusively refute Lilley's allegations.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating summary denials of postconviction motions—allegations that are not conclusively refuted by the record warrant an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLilley entered a no contest plea to charges of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child. At the plea hearing conducted via video camera, he responded …
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 Proceed cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Mark Lilley appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.
Lilley’s motion alleges that his no contest plea to charges of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child was not properly entered because he was under the influence of psychotropic medication at the plea hearing and did not understand what he was doing. He also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims his attorney failed to bring to the court’s attention, through documents and other information, his history of mental illness, alcoholism, and his medication.
The trial court attached to its order denying the motion a transcript of the plea colloquy and a copy of Lilley’s waiver of rights form. The transcript reveals that Lilley appeared before the court by video camera, and that he responded affirmatively when questioned about his understanding of his plea. Although defense counsel mentioned that Lil-ley “has had problems with ... mental problems,” the trial court failed to inquire into the nature and extent of those problems. Nor did the court inquire into Lilley’s use of prescription drugs. No further attempt was made on Lilley’s behalf to advise the trial court of his client’s mental status, other than to state that he personally believed Lilley was competent to proceed. The record discloses two court-ordered pre-trial psychological evaluations of Lilley, both detailing his mental illness. 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 drug. Lilley must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review from subsequent action by the trial court.
The remaining ground raised in Lilley’s motion is without merit.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosero v. State, 687 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…Appellant claimed his plea was defective because the court failed to ensure that he made an intelligent and voluntary waiver, and failed to ascertain his competence to enter the plea. See Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla.1992); Lilley v. State, 667 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Shaw v. State, 546 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). On these claims, we reverse and remand for attachment of other relevant portions of the record which substantiate the court’s ruling or for an evidentiary hearing. We find no e…
-
Broomfield v. State, 788 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…evidence to support the defense. Powell v. State, 464 So. 2d 1319, 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (recognizing the failure to raise a defendant’s alleged incompeteney as a ground for asserting ineffective assistance of counsel). See also Lilley v. State, 667 So. 2d 887, 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing for eviden-tiary hearing when the attachments to the record did not refute the defendant’s allegations that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the court of the defendant’s mental illness, alcoholis…
-
Renye v. State, 727 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…legations that medication and/or mental illness interfere with ability to comprehend nature and consequences of plea agreement must be conclusively refuted by record attachments or are subject to evidentiary hearing in trial court); Lilley v. State, 667 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (same). Renye alleges that his attorney coerced him to enter his plea by telling him and his parents that if he did not enter into a plea agreement, he would be given the death penalty. Even though the death sentence was a possib…
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)