RONNIE CREEK, 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.
Court reversed probation violation sentence and remanded for evidentiary hearing because the plea colloquy failed to address defendant's mental capacity and medication use, leaving allegations of involuntary plea not conclusively refuted.
A defendant who files a facially sufficient motion to withdraw a plea based on mental incapacity is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the record does not conclusively refute the allegations, even if the plea colloquy was extensive.
[1] A trial court's failure to inquire into a defendant's mental capacity and medication use during a plea colloquy does not conclusively refute allegations that the plea was…
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“A defendant who files a facially sufficient motion to withdraw a plea is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.”
Court citing Panchu v. State to establish the standard for withdrawal of plea motions based on mental incapacity.
Ronnie Creek violated his probation for burglary of a conveyance, battery on a person sixty-five years or older, and criminal mischief. He admitted th…
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 Mental Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Ronnie Creek, violated his probation, on which he was placed for the crimes of burglary of a conveyance, battery on a person sixty-five years of age or older and criminal mischief. Creek admitted to having violated his probation, pled open to the court, and was sentenced to sixty months in state prison. His attorney then filed a motion for rehearing and to set aside his plea, which was treated as a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(1). The motion alleged that, after sentencing, the attorney discovered for the first time that Creek suffers from severe mental illness, has received treatment and has been “Baker Acted” in the past. During Creek’s plea and sentencing hearing, he was under the influence of Prozac, Vistaril, Robaxin, and Tegretol. Because of his mental condition, his plea was not knowing and voluntary. The state responded, claiming that the plea colloquy conclusively refuted that contention. We reverse.
Although the plea colloquy was extensive, the trial court did not ask Creek about his mental capacity or his drug use. Therefore, the record does not conclusively refute the allegations in the motion. See Panchu v. State, 1 So.3d 1243, 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“A defendant who files a facially sufficient motion to withdraw a plea is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.”). We remand for an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
Reversed and remanded.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.