BERNARD A. STOREY, 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.
Bernard Storey appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion challenging the voluntariness of his probation violation admission. The court affirmed the denial of most claims but reversed and remanded one claim alleging his admission was involuntary due to untreated mental illness, finding the plea colloquy did not conclusively refute his allegations.
The court affirmed the denial of all claims except the involuntariness claim based on mental illness. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that Storey's factual allegations of mental illness were not conclusively refuted by the plea form and transcript, and therefore summary denial was improper.
[1] A claim for postconviction relief must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record to be summarily denied.
[2] Factual allegations in a motion for postconviction relief must be accepted as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record when no evidentiary hearing is held.
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“To uphold the trial court's summary denial of claims raised in a rule 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary denial of postconviction motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2005, Storey pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was placed on 18 months' probation. In 2007, he admitted to violating probation and was sente…
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 Competency To Enter Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
Bernard A. Storey appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without comment the denial of all but one of his claims. Because Storey’s claim that his violation of probation admission was involuntary due to his mental illness is not conclusively refuted by the record, we remand for an evidentiary hearing.
In 2005, Storey was charged with aggravated assault arising from a domestic altercation with his wife. Storey pleaded guilty and was placed on eighteen months’ probation. In 2007, an affidavit was filed alleging Storey had violated a condition of his probation. Storey entered an admission to the violation of probation and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison.1
In ground one of his motion for postconviction relief, Storey alleged that his violation of probation admission was involuntary due to his mental illness. Relying on Storey’s affirmative responses at the plea colloquy, the postconviction court summarily denied this claim and determined Storey was not suffering from any mental or emotional problems which affected his understanding of the plea.
To uphold the trial court’s summary denial of claims raised in a rule 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). “[W]here no evidentiary hearing is held below, we must accept the defendant’s factual allegations to the extent they are not refuted by the record.” Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla.1999). Here, in support of his motion for postconviction relief, Storey alleged he suffers from mental health issues. He stated that he has been to seven mental hospitals and has bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Sto-*107rey suffered mental breakdowns in 2002 and 2004 resulting in hospitalization and had a mental breakdown at Tampa International Airport eleven days before his violation of probation admission, causing a portion of the airport to close. Storey also alleged that he is prescribed six different psychotropic drugs, and at the time of the plea colloquy he had not received these medications for weeks. Storey argued that without these medications he was unable to understand the consequences of his pleas and would not have entered his pleas had he understood the nature and consequences of doing so.
Because the plea form and transcript of the plea colloquy do not adequately refute Storey’s claim so as to warrant a summary denial of his motion, we reverse and remand to the postconviction court for an evidentiary hearing on Storey’s claim that his violation of probation admission was involuntary due to his mental illness. See Forster v. State, 779 So.2d 550, 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finding a hearing on the merits was required where petitioner claimed his plea was involuntary because he was not administered medication for bipolar disorder); Irving v. State, 741 So.2d 519, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (noting “that mere affirmative responses by [the defendant] during the plea colloquy may not be sufficient to conclusively l’efute his claim of incompetence”).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
LaROSE and KHOUZAM, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Storey v. State, 139 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…inally summarily denied the motion, but we held on appeal that Storey’s motion alleged a claim of incompetency sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his admission to violating his probation was voluntary. Storey v. State, 32 So. 3d 105, 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). At the hearing on remand, Storey presented evidence to indicate he was not mentally competent at the time he entered his plea. A police officer who encountered Storey approximately two weeks prior to the plea hearing charac…
-
Cruz v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2019)…Petitioner’s rational and appropriate responses, and his full and lucid participation in the plea proceeding, demonstrate Petitioner’s reasonable degree of rational understanding of the proceedings. Petitioner’s reliance on Storey v. State, 32 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), is misplaced. See Petition at 12. In Storey, the state appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, finding the plea colloquy did not clearly refute the petitioner’s claim of incompetenc…
Authorities Cited
- Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1999)
- Markus Forster v. State, 779 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Marlin Doren Irving v. State, 741 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)