DAVID MCDOWELL, 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.
David McDowell appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction motion. The appellate court reversed in part, finding that two of his six grounds for relief—involuntary plea due to psychotropic drug influence and lack of factual basis for the conviction—were legally sufficient and warranted an evidentiary hearing despite the doctrine of successiveness.
The court held that McDowell's first and fourth grounds for relief are legally sufficient and sufficiently disparate from the prior motion to require consideration despite the successiveness doctrine. The first ground—involuntary plea due to psychotropic drug influence—and fourth ground—lack of factual basis for the conviction—both stated facially sufficient claims warranting an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A successive postconviction motion may require a hearing on claims that are legally sufficient and sufficiently disparate from prior claims.
[2] A claim that a guilty plea was involuntarily entered due to the influence of psychotropic drugs is facially sufficient for postconviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 first and fourth claims of Appellant's instant motion are legally sufficient and sufficiently disparate from the prior motion to require them to be heard despite the doctrine of successiveness.”
Establishes that the successiveness doctrine does not bar consideration of legally sufficient claims that are sufficiently disparate from prior motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcDowell filed a postconviction relief motion with six grounds challenging his conviction. A prior motion had challenged the legality of the cocaine p…
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 Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David McDowell appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which he alleged six grounds for relief. The denial was based on the State’s response, which did not address the merits of any of Appellant’s claims, but urged denial simply because the motion was successive to a previously denied motion to correct illegal sentence. Following the State’s recommendation to do so, the trial court had treated the prior motion as a rule 3.850 motion and denied it. The earlier motion challenged the existence of a law forbidding possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, as opposed to laws forbidding possession and forbidding sale, and also challenged whether Appellant’s escape charge had been drafted properly.
The first and fourth claims of Appellant’s instant motion are legally sufficient and sufficiently disparate from the prior motion to require them to be heard despite the doctrine of successiveness. See Williams v. State, 685 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Kiser v. State, 649 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
In the instant motion, Appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea. His first ground was that his plea was involuntarily entered because he was under the influence of psychotropic drugs which had been prescribed to him for his mental illness, and which prevented him from understanding the full, implication of his plea and sentence; had he understood the full implication, he would not have pleaded guilty. This claim is facially sufficient. See Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Williams, 685 So. 2d at 1318; Long v. State, 678 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Appellant’s fourth ground was that there was no factual basis for the trial court to accept his plea as to possession with intent to sell; there was a factual basis to support only possession. In effect, Appellant argues that he pleaded guilty to the wrong offense. See State v. Fox, 659 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 668 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1996).
The other issues raised are without merit, and we affirm the trial court’s summary denial as to those grounds. As to Appellant’s first and fourth grounds, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record conclusively showing that Appellant is entitled to no relief.
GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swatman v. State, 814 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…y refute Swatman’s claim, we affirm the trial court on this issue because Swatman did not- allege that he would not have pleaded if he had understood the nature of the pleas. Thus he has not stated a facially sufficient claim. See McDowell v. State, 714 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Swatman might have to file a facially sufficient claim on [*1111] this issue within sixty days of the date of the mandate in this case. If Swatman is able to file a facially suffi…
-
Payne v. State, 747 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ntidepressant medication. Under these circumstances, we are required to reverse as to ground three and remand for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of additional record excerpts conclusively refuting these allegations. See McDowell v. State, 714 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing summary denial based on similar allegations). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.…
-
Junior v. State, 920 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…nying his motion to withdraw plea, which was treated as a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of three of the four grounds without further discussion, but reverse as to the second ground, see McDowell v. State, 714 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing in part summary denial of post-conviction motion, including ground alleging that guilty plea was involuntarily entered because defendant was under influence of psychotropic drugs, prescribed for his mental illness, whi…
Authorities Cited
- State v. A.J. FOX, 659 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Gelco Corp. v. Escambia Cnty., 649 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Long v. State, 678 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Williams v. State, 685 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)