ROBERT LIBERTELLI, 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 summary denial of the motion for postconviction relief was improper because the plea colloquy did not conclusively refute the defendant's claim that his drug addiction rendered his plea involuntary.
Robert Libertelli pleaded guilty to violation of community control and was sentenced. He later filed a motion for postconviction relief, asserting his…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*139] PER CURIAM.
Robert Libertelli appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
On September 23, 1997, Libertelli pleaded guilty to violation of community control and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Libertelli now asserts that his plea was involuntary and he should be permitted to withdraw it. Libertelli claims that he was addicted to cocaine at the time of his arrest and was denied treatment for the approximately twenty days that he was held prior to arraignment. He asserts that his untreated addiction caused him not to understand fully the effects of his plea, including his right to a jury trial.
The plea colloquy reflects that the trial court made no inquiry as to Libertelli’s mental status or use of drugs. In fact, the plea colloquy was quite abbreviated and does not serve to refute Libertelli’s allegations. See Williams v. State, 685 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing trial court’s summary denial of motion for post-conviction relief when attachments to trial court order, including plea colloquy, did not conclusively refute defendant’s claim that the influence' of psychotropic medication rendered his plea involuntary). Because Libertelli’s claim is not refuted by the attachments to the order denying relief, we reverse this portion of the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Libertelli’s remaining claim is without merit and the trial court’s order is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnes v. State, 801 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…, and there was no inquiry or discussion during the plea colloquy as to medication or mental illness. The appellant’s claim is facially sufficient, and is not refuted by these attachments to the order de [*990] nying relief. See Libertelli v. State, 750 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Payne v. State, 747 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Rivera v. State, 746 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The summary denial of the Rule 3.850 motion is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded. ALLEN, C.J., BOOTH and BENTON…
-
Cook v. State, 865 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…court ever inquired into whether the appellant was under the influence of any drugs or medication. Thus, the trial court erred in summarily denying the appellant’s claim. See Barnes v. State, 801 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Libertelli v. State, 750 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order with respect to the appellant’s first claim, affirm the trial court’s order with respect to the remainder of the appellant’s claims, and remand the cause to the trial court for fu…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 685 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)