WHITLEY A. MCRAE, 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.
Whitley McRae appealed the summary denial of her postconviction relief motion (Rule 3.850), claiming her plea was involuntary due to psychotropic medications. The court affirmed the denial of three grounds but reversed as to Ground One, finding that the record did not conclusively refute her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the voluntariness of her plea.
The court reversed the summary denial of Ground One and remanded the case, finding that the written plea form and colloquy did not conclusively refute McRae's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure her plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The trial court must either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A claim regarding the involuntariness of a defendant's plea, when raised in a motion for postconviction relief, must be construed as a claim that trial counsel was ineffe…
[2] A motion for postconviction relief must be granted an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief or…
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“A claim regarding the involuntariness of a defendant's plea, when raised by the filing of a rule 3.850 motion, must be construed to be a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.”
Establishes the legal standard for construing plea voluntariness claims in postconviction relief motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcRae entered a guilty plea while taking psychotropic medications. She filed a postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3…
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitley A, McRae appeals the summary denial of her motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds Two, Three, and Four. In Ground One, McRae alleges her plea was involuntary due to a combination of psychotropic medications she was taking at the time she entered her plea. Although she did not allege that counsel was ineffective, we construe Ground One as if she had. See Barnhill v. State, 828 So.2d 405, 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“[A] claim regarding the involuntariness of a defendant’s plea, when raised by the filing of a rule 3.850 motion, must be construed to be a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.”); see also Jackson v. State, 801 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Because the written plea form and colloquy attached to the trial court’s order does not conclusively refute a claim that counsel was -ineffective for failing to ensure McRae’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, see Pagliaro v. State, 963 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (finding evidentiary hearing was required where defendant was never asked whether *104he was under the influence of any medications), we reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996))).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
EVANDER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)
- Barnhill v. State, 828 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Jackson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Pagliaro v. State, 963 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)