ROGER FOELEY, 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.
Roger Foeley appealed the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and withdraw his plea, claiming his ingestion of prescription drug Pamelor rendered him unable to comprehend the plea's nature and consequences. The court affirmed denial of some claims but reversed and remanded regarding the involuntary plea claim, holding that a prior appellate decision permitted a timely refiled motion and that the plea colloquy transcript supported rather than rebutted his claim.
The court affirmed the denial of claims based on Heggs v. State and the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. However, the court reversed the denial of the involuntary plea claim because: (1) a prior appellate opinion explicitly permitted a timely refiled motion and stated it would not be deemed successive; and (2) the plea colloquy transcript supported rather than rebutted Foeley's factual assertions, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A prior appellate decision stating that a motion shall not be deemed successive if filed timely, if followed, prevents a subsequent motion from being denied as successive…
[2] A motion to withdraw a plea based on involuntary ingestion of prescription medication is facially sufficient when the plea colloquy transcript supports the defendant's as…
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“If Foeley files such a timely motion, it shall not be deemed successive.”
The prior appellate decision explicitly authorized a timely refiled motion and precluded successive motion treatment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFoeley entered a guilty plea but later sought to withdraw it, contending that his ingestion of the prescription drug Pamelor impaired his ability to u…
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 Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Roger Foeley appeals the order denying his motion to vacate judgment, withdraw plea, and correct illegal sentence. We affirm the denial of his claim based on Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without further comment. As to the remaining ground, however, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Foeley contended that his plea was involuntary because his ingestion of the prescription drug Pamelor rendered him unable to comprehend the nature and consequences of the plea.1 The circuit court denied the claim as successive because Foeley had previously attempted to withdraw his plea on these grounds in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(Z). Thus, the court did not reach the merits of this claim.
Apparently, the circuit court was not alerted to this court’s opinion in Foeley v. State, 828 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), in which we affirmed the order denying Foeley’s earlier rule 3.170(i) motion without prejudice to his filing a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We specifically stated that “[i]f Foeley files such a timely motion, it shall not be deemed successive.” Id. at 483. Because the present motion to withdraw his plea was timely, the circuit court should not have denied this claim as successive.
Foeley’s motion presents a facially sufficient claim. The circuit court attached the transcript of the plea colloquy to its order. That transcript supports, rather than rebuts, Foeley’s assertion. Because the record attachments do not conclusively refute Foeley’s claim, an evidentiary hearing is required. See Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (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). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order denying Foeley’s motion to withdraw his plea on this ground, and we remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur. . The circuit court treated this portion of the motion as one filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Foeley v. State, 828 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- First Paradee, Ltd. v. Jones, 828 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)