GARY LEE MUNGEN, 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.
Gary Mungen appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, challenging his guilty plea and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the denial of the ineffective assistance claim but reversed and remanded regarding the involuntary plea claim, finding the record did not conclusively refute his assertion that psychotropic medication impaired his ability to plead voluntarily.
The court affirmed the denial of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim but reversed the summary denial of the involuntary plea claim. The record does not conclusively refute Mungen's claim that medication impaired his voluntary entry of the plea, and the trial court failed to personally ask Mungen whether the medication was affecting his ability to understand the proceedings and voluntarily plead, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c).
[1] A claim that a plea was involuntarily entered due to the influence of psychotropic medication is facially sufficient and cognizable for postconviction relief.
[2] A trial court must personally address a defendant under oath to determine the voluntariness of a plea, including whether the defendant understands the nature of the charg…
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“Although the plea transcript reflects that the trial court was concerned about the effect of the medications and satisfied itself that they were not impairing Mungen's ability to enter the plea, the transcript does not conclusively refute his claim to the contrary.”
Explains why the record does not conclusively refute the involuntary plea claim, requiring a hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMungen entered a guilty plea while taking psychotropic medication. During the plea colloquy, the medication's effect was discussed, and Mungen's couns…
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
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Gary Mungen challenges the order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. As to his claim of inef fective assistance of counsel, we affirm the denial of relief without further comment. However, we reverse the postconviction court’s finding that the record conclusively refutes Mungen’s claim that his plea was involuntarily entered and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Mungen’s motion and accompanying memorandum of law, which was sworn, argued that his plea was involuntary because he was under the influence of psychotropic medication at the time he entered it and that he would not have agreed to the plea if he had not been under the influence. Such a claim is facially sufficient and cognizable under rule 3.850. See Colon v. State, 933 So. 2d 2, 2006 WL 1098269 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr.19, 2006); Mosley v. State, 888 So. 2d 734, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
When summarily denying this claim, the postconviction court attached a copy of the plea colloquy in Mungen’s case. The fact that Mungen was medicated was discussed during the colloquy, and Mungen’s counsel told the trial court that the medication was not affecting Mungen’s ability to plead and understand the consequences of the plea. However, the trial court never personally asked Mungen whether the medication was affecting his ability to understand the proceeding and to voluntarily plead. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(c) (“Except when the defendant is not present for a plea, ... the trial court should, when determining voluntariness, place the defendant under oath and shall address the defendant personally and shall determine that he or she understands: (1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered .... ”).
Although the plea transcript reflects that the trial court was concerned about the effect of the medications and satisfied itself that they were not impairing Mun-gen’s ability to enter the plea, the transcript does not conclusively refute his claim to the contrary. See Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592, 592-93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case for the postconviction court to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to this claim.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marckman v. State, 997 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…court error are not cognizable under rule 3.850 because they could have been raised on direct appeal. On appeal, Marckman correctly argues that his challenges to the voluntary nature of his plea are cognizable under rule 3.850. See Mungen v. State, 932 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that claim that plea was involuntary because the court failed to comply with rule 3.172(c) was cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion); Youngblood v. State, 930 So. 2d 852, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that an involun…
-
Balko v. State, 934 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…motion were not successive, it was facially insufficient. From the trial court’s order, it appears that the trial court thought that Mr. Balko was alleging that he was under the influence of these drugs at the time of his plea. See Mungen v. State, 932 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Rivera v. State, 651 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Despite this confusion, [*664] Mr. Balko does not allege a factual basis to establish that his counsel had information requiring him to investigate this issue or that the failur…
-
Davis v. State, 139 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…erstanding of the consequences because he was under the influence of a heavy dose of psychotropic medication at the time he entered it. Such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.850 and can constitute grounds to withdraw the plea. See Mungen v. State, 932 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592, 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In summarily denying relief on ■ this ground, the postconviction court attached the transcript of Mr. Davis’s plea hearing to refute his allegations. At the start…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Sherwood v. Quietwater Ent., Inc., 888 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Colon v. State, 933 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)