ERROL STILLEY, 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 Fourth District affirmed the summary denial of postconviction relief where the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance and inability to comprehend his plea due to medication were conclusory, incredible, or forfeited by his own deliberate concealment from the trial court.
A defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief based on claims that medication affected his plea comprehension when he deliberately failed to disclose the medication to the trial court, and claims that he would have rejected a favorable plea offer are patently incredible as a matter of law.
[1] A defendant forfeits postconviction relief based on medication-related plea comprehension claims by deliberately concealing the medication from the trial court, and claim…
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 postconviction court is not required to hold hearings on absurd claims or accept as true allegations that defy logic and which are inherently incredible.”
The court explained the standard for dismissing patently incredible claims in postconviction proceedings, requiring that any claim of rejecting a plea offer be objectively reasonable considering the totality of circumstances.
Appellant Stilley entered a negotiated plea to probation after facing mandatory life and thirty years in prison on four counts as a career criminal an…
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 Plea Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
The order summarily denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief is affirmed. Appellant makes several claims *602regarding his plea and his inability to comprehend it because he was on medication. However, in his motion, he alleges defense counsel told him not to mention to the judge that he was taking psychotropic medication. He is not entitled to relief if he deliberately did not tell the trial court that his medication was affecting his understanding. See Iacono v. State, 930 So.2d 829, 830-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). As to his other claims, most are conclusory or show no ineffective assistance. Moreover, his claims that he would not have taken such a favorable plea offer and would have gone to trial, given the evidence against him, are patently incredible. Appellant was facing mandatory life and thirty years in prison on four counts as a career criminal and a prison releasee reoffender. He entered a negotiated plea to a term of probation. “A postconviction court is not required to hold hearings on absurd claims or accept as true allegations that defy logic and which are inherently incredible.” Capalbo v. State, 73 So.3d 838, 840-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (recognizing a probability that defendant would not have accepted the plea offer must be objectively reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances, a mere possibility or bald allegations do not suffice, and if objectively unreasonable the claim can be summarily denied); see also Montero v. State, 996 So.2d 888, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Affirmed.
Gerber, C.J., Warner and Levine, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Iacono v. State, 930 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Montero v. State, 996 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Capalbo v. State, 73 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)