DAVID B. BILLENS, 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 reversed the summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion because the record did not conclusively refute the defendant's claim that his plea was involuntary due to anti-psychotic medication, requiring the trial court to either attach relevant record portions or hold an evidentiary hearing.
A trial court cannot summarily deny a Rule 3.850 motion challenging plea voluntariness based on medication influence without attaching record portions that conclusively refute the claim or holding an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court must attach record portions that conclusively refute a Rule 3.850 claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing rather than summarily denying a motion challenging…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“because there is no transcript of the plea hearing attached to the order denying relief, we cannot determine whether the court questioned [defendant] about his medications and his ability to understand the consequences of entering a plea”
Court explaining why summary denial was improper without complete record
Appellant Billens entered a guilty plea while allegedly under the influence of an anti-psychotic drug and filed a Rule 3.850 motion challenging the vo…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The record does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim that his plea was involuntary because he was under the influence of an anti-psychotic drug when he entered his plea. See Doward v. State, 802 So.2d 518, 519-520 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“... because there is no transcript of the plea hearing attached to the order denying relief, we cannot determine whether the court questioned [defendant] about his medications and his ability to understand the consequences of entering a plea, nor can we determine whether [defendant] responded appropriately when questioned during the plea dialogue”); Thomas v. State, 707 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the court’s failure to attach portions of the record which it relied upon to deny a claim precludes this Court from conducting meaningful appellate review).
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of the appellant’s motion and remand for the lower court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to hold an eviden-tiary hearing. We affirm without further discussion the appellant’s remaining claims.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
HAWKES, C.J., BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- McELRATH v. State, 802 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Doward v. State, 802 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)