TINA MICHELLE PAYNE, 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.
Tina Michelle Payne appealed the summary denial of her Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging she was under the influence of psychotropic medication when she entered her guilty plea and could not comprehend the consequences. The appellate court found the trial court erred in summarily denying this ground and required an evidentiary hearing or additional record evidence.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the third ground for relief. Where a defendant alleges specific psychotropic medication use and consequent inability to comprehend the plea, the matter must be resolved through an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of record excerpts conclusively refuting the allegations, rather than summary denial.
[1] A trial court may not summarily deny a motion for postconviction relief when the defendant alleges being under the influence of psychotropic medication at the time of ent…
[2] A defendant's allegation that they were under the influence of psychotropic medication at the time of entering a plea is sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing or t…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Defendant was under the influence of psychotropic medications. She was not competent to know the consequences of that plea and must not be induced by promises, threats or coercion.”
Establishes the specific allegations made by appellant in her sworn memorandum regarding medication and incompetence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a Rule 3.850 motion raising three grounds for post-conviction relief. Two grounds were properly denied. The third ground alleged that …
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
WOLF, J.
Appellant filed a rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, motion which was summarily denied by the trial court. The motion raised three grounds, two of which we find were properly denied. We do find, however, that the trial court erred in summarily denying the third ground for relief, that appellant was under the influence of psychotropic medication at the time she entered her plea.
The trial court denied appellant’s motion attaching a portion of the transcript of the plea conference and cited to Davis v. State, 716 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We find that neither the transcript nor the cited case supports the summary denial.
The portion of the transcript attached by the court does not indicate that appellant was asked if she was aware of the consequences of her plea or whether she was taking any medication. Cf. Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (denial proper where record reflected defendant’s written statement that he was not under drugs at time of entrance of the plea). In Davis, the court held that the defendant’s allegations as to being under the influence of drugs at the time of the plea were insufficient in that “he did not quite allege that he in fact was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time he entered his plea, he also did not allege anywhere in the motion that he did not know what he was doing or did not understand the proceedings as a consequence of being under the influence.”
In the instant case, appellant specifically alleges in her sworn memorandum of law that Defendant was under the influence of psychotropic medications. She was not competent to know the consequences of that plea and must not be induced by promises, threats or coercion.
Defendant was unable to comprehend the nature of consequences of her plea due to being on antidepressant 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- McDOWELL v. State, 714 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Terence R. Davis v. State, 716 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)