MIGUEL ANGEL COLON, 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 post-conviction court erred in summarily denying claim nine without attaching record evidence refuting it.
The defendant pleaded guilty to certain charges and was convicted of others. He later filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective …
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
LaROSE, Judge.
Miguel Angel Colon challenges the post-conviction court’s summary denial of his motion for relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The records attached to the postconviction court’s order do not conclusively refute claim nine of Mr. Colon’s motion. Consequently, we reverse and remand as to this claim. We affirm, without further comment, all other aspects of the posteonviction court’s denial of relief.
Mr. Colon was charged with possession of cocaine, possession of cannabis, armed trafficking in heroin, conspiracy to traffic in heroin, and carrying a concealed firearm. He pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis. A jury convicted him of the other offenses. The trial court sentenced Mr. Colon to five concurrent ten-year prison sentences. In claim nine of Ms rule 3.850 motion, Mr. Colon contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court accepting his guilty plea to possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis. According to Mr. Colon, at the time of his plea, he suffered from a mental defect and was taking psychotropic medications. Allegedly, his trial counsel knew of these facts. Mr. Colon argues that his plea was involuntary under these circumstances. This claim is facially sufficient. See Szeremi v. State, 862 So. 2d 935, 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Robinson v. State, 909 So. 2d 497, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Mosley v. State, 888 So. 2d 734, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
The postconviction court denied claim nine as conclusory, without attaching any record attachments conclusively refuting the claim. On remand, the postconviction court should attach to any subsequent order any records that conclusively refute Mr. Colon’s claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing on claim nine.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mungen v. State, 932 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…s 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 medi…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 909 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Szeremi v. State, 862 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Sherwood v. Quietwater Ent., Inc., 888 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)