RONALD DEVERS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion challenging the voluntariness of a criminal plea. The state conceded error because the trial court failed to attach evidence conclusively refuting the defendant's claims of involuntary plea and incompetency.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the 3.850 motion. When a defendant raises a claim of involuntary plea and prior mental incompetency in a 3.850 motion, the trial court must either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims, and must apply the presumption of incompetency with the burden on the state to prove competency.
[1] A motion challenging the voluntariness of a plea is properly cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[2] A trial court must attach evidence that conclusively refutes a claim of involuntary plea, or hold an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court was required to attach evidence conclusively refuting such a claim”
Establishes the mandatory requirement that when a 3.850 motion raises voluntariness of plea claims, the court must attach conclusive evidence refuting them or hold a hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Devers filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion challenging the voluntariness of his plea, asserting claims of mental incompe…
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 Voluntariness Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
On Confession of Error
Upon the state’s laudable confession of error, this case is reversed and remanded in order for the lower court to either hold an evidentiary hearing or to attach por*1127tions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claims.
As conceded by the state, Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion challenged the voluntariness of his plea, a claim properly cognizable in a 3.850 motion. Mikenas v. State, 460 So.2d 359 (Fla.1984). As a result, the trial court was required to attach evidence conclusively refuting such a claim. See, e.g., Barnes v. State, 124 So.3d 904, 915 (Fla.2013); Barnes v. State, 801 So.2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reversing summary denial of 3.850 motion where defendant alleged plea was involuntary due to mental'illness and court failed to attach documents that' conclusively refuted his " claims); Young v. State, 789 So.2d 1160, 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“absent a transcript of the plea hearing, Young’s claim that his plea was unknowing has not been conclusively refuted by the record. Thus, as to this claim, we reverse and remand for -further proceedings.”).
Moreover, because Appellant’s claims must be taken as true, Appellant was entitled to the presumption of incompetency. Alexander v. State, 380 So.2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (once adjudicated incompetent, a hearing .on whether competency has been restored cannot be waived); King v. State, 387 So.2d 463, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (“In Florida, if a person is adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, it is presumed he continues to be so until it is shown his sanity has returned"). Moreover, this presumption shifts the burden of proving competency to the state. Wells v. State, 98 So.2d 795 (Fla.1957). In its initial response below, the state failed to address the question of incompetency. Upon remand, the trial court should require the state to adequately respond to Appellant’s claims of incompetency.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Appellant’s claims of incompetence under the presumption of incompetence and to provide evidentiary support for its-conclusions on those claims.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1984)
- Barnes v. State, 124 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 2013)
- Alexander v. State, 380 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Wells v. State, 98 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1957)
- King v. State, 387 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Young v. State, 789 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Barnes v. State, 801 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)