MATTHEW LEE DIXON, 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.
Dixon appeals the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 1.850 motion to vacate his guilty plea to first-degree murder, claiming he was under the influence of drugs when he pleaded guilty. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no factual basis in the record to support Dixon's claim and noting his three-and-a-half-year delay in raising the issue.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Dixon's motion to vacate, holding that the record contained no facts indicating Dixon was under the influence of drugs at the time of his plea, and that his failure to raise this issue until more than three years after his plea weighed against granting relief.
[1] A guilty plea is involuntary if the defendant is under the influence of drugs to the extent that their faculties are impaired.
[2] A trial court may summarily deny a petition for post-conviction relief if the record fails to disclose facts supporting the allegations.
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“the failure of the record to disclose any facts that would indicate the appellant was under the influence of drugs at the time of his plea”
Establishes that Dixon's claim lacked evidentiary support in the record, the core basis for affirming the denial of his motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDixon was charged with first-degree murder on January 10, 1967, and initially pleaded not guilty on February 16, 1967. On May 24, 1967, during trial, …
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 Intoxication Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his petition filed pursuant to Rule 1.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A.
The appellant was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree on January 10, 1967, to which he pleaded not guilty on February 16, 1967. The cause came on for trial, at which the appellant in person and with counsel withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty on May 24, 1967. He was questioned by both the trial judge and the prosecuting attorney concerning the circumstances of his plea and the possible consequences thereof.1 He was incarcerated from January 16, 1967 to August 10, 1967 when he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life in prison. On December 10, 1970, the appellant filed a motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 1.850 CrPR, alleging he was under the influence of drugs at the time of pleading guilty to such an extent that his faculties were impaired so as to make said plea involuntary. The trial court, after examination of the motion and court file, entered the order appealed.
Both counsel have called to our attention the following cases; Coates v. United States, 1959, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 273 F.2d 514; Hansford v. United States, 1966, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 365 F.2d 920; Manley v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 699. We have examined these authorities and, on the basis of the record before this court, we do not find them applicable. An examination of the record also discloses no basis to disturb the trial court’s ruling, in light of the failure of the record to disclose any facts that would indicate the appellant was under the influence of drugs at the time of his plea. United States v. Sprenz, 6th Cir. 1962, 304 F.2d 525; Tucker v. United States, 6th Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 655. We would also be remiss if we did not point out that the petitioner did not complain to the trial court of the use of drugs between the date of his plea and the date sentence was entered, nor did he avail himself of the Rule 1 petition until some three and one-half years after his plea in a case in which he was facing a capital sentence. In this connection, attention is called to Pait v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 15; Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 85; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 784; Goodall v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 263; Ersek v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 481; O’Fallon v. State, Fla.App., 239 So.2d 872; North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162.
*596Wherefore, for the above reasons, we find that the trial judge was eminently correct in denying the relief sought on the record as then presented to him, and therefore the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Onnestad v. State, 404 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…the plea was knowingly and intelligently entered. On appeal, appellant argues that impairment of thought processes due to the use of drugs may vitiate the knowing and intelligent aspect of a plea and render the plea involuntary. See Dixon v. State, 252 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). In addition, appellant submits that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea prior to imposition of sentence should be liberally construed in his favor. Adler v. State, 382 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). As an initial proposition, wi…
-
Miller v. State, 378 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Pait v. State, 188 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Ersek v. State, 238 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Dixon v. State, 252 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); McCrae v. State, 313 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Robinson v. State, 321 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Crespo v. State, 339 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Capo v. State, 363 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); North Carolina v. Al…
-
Thomas v. State, 390 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…tion was based on the claim that he was under the influence of psychotropic medicine when he pled guilty to first degree murder in 1973. The record indicates that this issue was specifically raised when the plea was entered. Compare, Dixon v. State, 252 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The transcript of the colloquy, however, is internally contradictory on several key issues. On at least two occasions, Thomas avowed that he understood the proceedings completely; on another, he stated, “I don’t understand anythi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970)
- Hansford v. United States, 365 F.2d 920 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
- Garcia v. State, 228 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Plymale v. State, 201 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Coates v. United States, 273 F.2d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1959)
- Baird Everett Manley v. United States, 396 F.2d 699 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Istvan J. Ersek v. State, 238 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- O'Fallon v. State, 239 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- United States v. Sprenz, 304 F.2d 525 (6th Cir. 1962)
- Lewis v. Comet GAS Co., 188 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)