BRENDA KAY GOODMAN, 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.
Brenda Goodman appeals the denial of her motion to vacate her guilty plea conviction, claiming she did not understand the consequences of her plea because she was denied access to psychotropic medication. The appellate court reversed, holding that her allegations were legally sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing or record review by the trial court.
The court held that Goodman's allegations are legally sufficient to support relief, requiring the trial court to either attach appropriate record portions to refute the allegations or conduct an evidentiary hearing. If proven, the allegations that she did not knowingly enter the plea may entitle her to relief.
[1] A trial court must summarily deny a motion for post-conviction relief if the allegations are legally insufficient to support the requested relief.
[2] If a trial court denies a motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing or attaching the record, appellate review is limited to whether the motion, acc…
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“When a trial court summarily denies a motion for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record to refute the allegations, review is limited to determining whether, accepting the allegations as true, the motion shows the defendant is not entitled to relief.”
Establishes the standard of review for summary denials of rule 3.850 motions without hearings or record attachment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoodman entered a guilty plea but later filed a motion to vacate her judgment and sentence. She alleged that she did not understand the consequences o…
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 Consequences Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Brenda Goodman, appeals the trial court’s denial of the 3.850 motion to vacate her judgment and sentence. Appellant’s motion to vacate alleged that she did not understand the consequences of her guilty plea because she had not been properly medicated when she entered the plea. The trial court, without an evidentiary hearing, denied the appellant’s motion to vacate as legally insufficient.
The resolution of motions presented to trial courts under rule 3.850 falls into three categories,
(1) the allegations in the motion are insufficient as a matter of law to support the relief prayed for, in which case the trial court should summarily deny the motion; (2) the allegations in the motion are sufficient on their face, but the record in the case indicates that the allegations are unfounded or that the defendant is entitled to no relief, in which case the trial' court must attach the relevant portion of the record to the order denying relief; or (3) the allegations in the motion are sufficient on their face and the record in this case does not conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, in which case the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing, after which the court may rule on the motion.
Owens v. State, 463 So. 2d 408, 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
In the present case, the trial court summarily denied the appellant’s 3.850 motion as legally insufficient. “When a trial court summarily denies a motion for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record to refute the allegations, review is limited to determining whether, accepting the allegations as true, the motion shows the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Edwards v. State, 652 So. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
The appellant’s motion to vacate alleges she did not understand the consequences of her plea because she was denied access to her psychotropic medication. If these allegations are proven, i.e., the appellant did not knowingly enter the plea, the appellant may be entitled to relief. See Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256, 258 (Fla.1992). Therefore, the appellant has alleged a legally sufficient basis for relief. As such, we reverse and remand to the trial court to either attach the appropriate portions of the record to the order denying relief or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1992)
- Owens v. State, 463 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Edwards v. State, 652 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)