WILLIE RUSS, 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.
Willie Russ appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion challenging the validity of his guilty plea, asserting he was under the influence of psychotropic medication when he entered the plea. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Russ's written plea agreement and plea colloquy contained explicit statements that conclusively refuted his claim of involuntariness.
The court affirmed the summary denial of Russ's postconviction motion, holding that his written plea agreement and plea colloquy contained clear and wholly inconsistent affirmations that conclusively refuted his later postconviction claim of involuntariness due to medication.
[1] A written plea agreement may conclusively refute a postconviction claim that a plea was involuntary due to medication.
[2] A defendant's affirmative statement in a written plea agreement that they are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol can refute claims of involuntary plea due to med…
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“I state to the court that I am not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that no one has forced me to enter this plea, and that I am entering this plea freely and voluntarily.”
The explicit language in Russ's written plea agreement that directly refuted his later claim of involuntariness due to medication influence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuss entered a guilty plea and signed a written plea agreement that included a provision stating he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol an…
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 Knowing And Voluntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his postconviction motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to all issues raised by appellant but feel it instructive to address one. Because there was sufficient evidence in the written plea agreement to refute appellant’s allegation that his plea was involuntary because he was under the influence of psychotropic medication, we affirm.
Appellant asserts his plea was involuntarily entered because he was under the influence of psychotropic medication at the time of the plea’s entry. However, in his written plea agreement, directly above his signature, the agreement included the following provision:
I state to the court that I am not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that no one has forced me to enter this plea, and that I am entering this plea freely and voluntarily.
(emphasis added). In addition, during his plea colloquy, the following discussion transpired:
THE COURT: And the plea form that she handed to me, that you signed in my presence, did you have a chance to read this over carefully?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And did you go over it with your attorney as well?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And did you have any questions about anything you read on the form?
THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: And on the back; where it says defendant, that is your signature?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to a plea’s entry based on the appellant’s use of psychotropic medication during the plea hearing may be refuted where an appellant affirmatively states that his medication does not affect the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea. See Iacono v. State, 930 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (determining appellant’s claim that he was under the influence of psychotropic medication was refuted by the record). In addition, while it has long been recognized that written plea agreements and plea colloquies may not be sufficiently specific to conclusively refute the appellant’s later postconviction claims, where an appellant makes a clearly and wholly inconsistent affirmance which contradicts his later postconviction claim, such claim may be summarily denied. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235, 237 (Fla.1996); see also Golden v. State, 703 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (acknowledging the written plea agreement may refute the appellant’s postconviction claims but remanding for attachment of a complete and signed written plea agreement). Furthermore, a written plea agreement alone may refute a postconviction claim. See Hill v. State, 895 So. 2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that both the plea colloquy and the written plea agreement should be analyzed for statements which conclusively refute the appellant’s postconviction claims prior to summarily denying the motion) (emphasis added).
The appellant signed a written agreement affirming that he was not under the influence of drugs during the entry of his plea. Further, the appellant agreed in his plea colloquy that he had twice considered the provisions of his plea agreement and that he had no objections to the plea’s entry.1 Thus, because the appellant categorically denied being under the influence of medication at his plea hearing, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of this claim.
LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ„ concur. . We are not unmindful of the case of Barnes v. State, 801 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); we, however, find that case is not controlling because there is no indication what was actually contained in the appellant's written plea agreement or whether, during the plea colloquy, the appellant acknowledged that he read and understood the written plea, agreement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montero v. State, 996 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ependently asked questions of the court that demonstrated his understanding of the proceedings. He cannot go behind his sworn assertions and challenge the voluntariness of his plea. Iacono v. State, 930 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Russ v. State, 937 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Kirby v. State, 733 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The record conclusively refutes his allegations that he was not mentally competent to enter a plea. Finally, appellant filed a supplemental motion, arguing that the records i…
-
Bluntson v. State, 98 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…tolen property was properly rejected by the trial court. The trial court attached portions of the record showing a factual basis for the plea and the plea itself, which included Appellant’s waiver of his right to present defenses. See Russ v. State, 937 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In addition to the plea, the trial court attached the portion of the plea colloquy where Appellant confirmed to the court that he understood that he was waiving his right to make the State prove its case against him beyond a rea…
-
Faretta v. California (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2008)…ts, including the right to consult with an appointed attorney; that he understood the nature and effect of the charges and the plea; and that he waived those rights. A written plea form such as this refutes a postconviction claim. See Russ v. State, 937 So. 2d 1199, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“…..a written plea agreement alone may refute a postconviction claim.”); Hill v. State, 895 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th 2005); Golden v. State, 703 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). AFFIRMED. DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Iacono v. State, 930 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Golden v. State, 703 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Hill v. State, 895 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Barnes v. State, 801 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)