ANGEL LUIS 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.
Angel Rivera appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief seeking to set aside his nolo contendere plea. He argues that mental illness and medications prevented him from comprehending his plea's nature and consequences. The court reversed, holding that his allegations were not conclusively refuted by the record and an evidentiary hearing was required.
The court held that an affirmative answer to plea colloquy questions and a signed plea agreement are insufficient by themselves to refute a defendant's claim that he did not understand his plea due to mental illness and medication effects. An evidentiary hearing is required when the record does not conclusively refute the allegations.
[1] A defendant's motion for postconviction relief alleging a lack of understanding of the nature and consequences of a plea due to mental illness and medication is facially…
[2] An affirmative answer to standard questions during a plea colloquy is insufficient to conclusively refute a defendant's claim that they did not understand the plea due to…
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“This court has previously held that an affirmative answer during the plea colloquy to these types of questions is insufficient to refute a defendant's claim for relief.”
Establishes that formal plea colloquy responses alone cannot defeat postconviction claims of incomprehension
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRivera entered a nolo contendere plea to ten felony charges. At the time of the plea hearing, he was taking 200 milligrams of thorazine and other medi…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Angel Rivera appeals the summary deni-' al of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He seeks to set aside his nolo contendere plea to ten separate felony charges. Rivera contends that, due to a combination of mental illness as well as the numerous medications he was taking, he could not comprehend the nature and consequences of his plea. Because the trial court’s record attachments do not refute this claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Rivera asserts in his motion that he did not understand what he was doing at the plea hearing and would not have entered a plea if he had not been under the influence of medication. Rivera attached medical records which indicate that he was taking several medications including haldol, librium and thorazine in the months leading up to the day his plea was entered. On the day Rivera entered his plea, he was taking several medications, including 200 milligrams of thorazine. Additionally, the records show Rivera was regularly seen by a psychiatrist while in county jail. His medical records indicate he suffered from attention deficit disorder, depression and some form of psychosis. Those records also indicate Rivera experienced auditory hallucinations the entire time he was in detention.
We find that Rivera’s motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (citing Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). The trial court denied the motion, relying, in part, on the plea form signed by Rivera and the transcript of the plea colloquy. These attachments do not refute Rivera’s claim.
The plea colloquy consisted of ten questions. Rivera answered each question with either a yes or no. The trial court inquired if Rivera understood the plea agreement and if he was freely and voluntarily entering into it. Rivera answered affirmatively. This court has previously held that an affirmative answer during the plea colloquy to these types of questions is insufficient to refute a defendant’s claim for relief. See Reutter, 590 So. 2d at 1133; Campbell, 488 So. 2d at 592; Gunn, 379 So. 2d at 432. Similarly, the existence of a signed, written plea agreement, by itself, is insufficient to refute a defendant’s claim for relief. See McCallum v. State, 591 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Instead, where the record does not conclusively refute the allegations, an evidentiary hearing is required. See Gunn, 379 So. 2d at 432 (holding summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief can only be sustained where “the motion and the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief ....”) (citations omitted). One was not held in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing on Rivera’s claim.
GREEN, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Iacono v. State, 930 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ng the plea colloquy conclusively refute the post-conviction claim that he was “too messed up” to understand the plea. The court asked Iacono specifically about the drugs he was taking and how he was feeling. This is not a case like Rivera v. State, 746 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), where the trial court made only a generic inquiry and the defendant merely answered yes or no to standard questions. Rivera was not asked specifically about his medication although he was taking several psychotropic drugs and exp…
-
Young v. State, 789 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…owing. See Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1984); Spacco v. State, 739 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Montgomery v. State, 615 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Young’s motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Rivera v. State, 746 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Relief may be summarily denied where the record conclusively refutes the claim. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996). In the instant case, because the report was made four months before Young entered his plea, the reco…
-
Doward v. State, 802 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…tion relief, the defendant has the burden of showing that the plea was not intelligently or voluntarily entered. Young v. State, 789 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Doward’s motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Rivera v. State, 746 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, relief may be summarily denied only where the record conclusively refutes the claim. Young, 789 So. 2d at 1161. In this case, the psychiatrist’s report relied on by the trial court to deny relief was prepared three…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- McCALLUM v. State, 591 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)