THOMAS
v.
STATE
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.
A defendant who is questioned on the record about medication, testifies under oath that the medication does not affect his ability to understand the proceedings, and demonstrates understanding through appropriate responses cannot subsequently challenge the voluntariness of his plea based on medication.
[1] A defendant who testifies under oath at a plea hearing that psychotropic medication does not impair his ability to understand the proceedings and who demonstrates underst…
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“He cannot go behind his sworn assertions and challenge the voluntariness of his plea.”
Court's statement regarding defendant's testimony under oath that medication was not affecting his ability to understand the proceedings
Appellant claimed his plea was involuntary because he was under the effect of psychotropic medication when he entered it. He was questioned on the rec…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Montero v. State, 996 So. 2d 888, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ("Appellant ... claimed that his plea was involuntary because he was under the effect of psychotropic medication when he entered into it. Appellant, however, was specifically questioned on the record regarding the medication he had taken.... He testified under oath that these medications were not affecting his ability to understand the proceedings. He answered all questions during the plea hearing appropriately, and independently asked questions of the court that demonstrated his understanding of the proceedings. He cannot go behind his *1193sworn assertions and challenge the voluntariness of his plea.").