LOUIS ALLELUIO, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a robbery conviction because the trial court improperly refused to allow withdrawal of the defendant's guilty plea despite evidence he was incompetent at the time the plea was entered. The court held that mental competency at plea is a constitutional requirement under the Supreme Court's decisions in Boykin and McCarthy.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. A defendant's mental competency at the time of entering a guilty plea is a constitutional prerequisite, and the court must consider evidence of incompetency before adjudging guilt.
[1] A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea when there is a suggestion of the defendant's mental incompetency at the time the plea was ente…
[2] When a defendant's mental competency is questioned after a guilty plea, the court must inquire into and determine competency at the time of the plea.
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“Appellant's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and then adjudging him to be guilty without making inquiry into and determining whether appellant was insane at the time he entered his plea.”
States the central issue on appeal regarding the constitutional requirement to inquire into mental competency at the time of plea.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant entered a guilty plea to robbery on November 10, 1975, represented by an assistant public defender. Eleven days later, the trial court appoi…
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 Psychiatric Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and then adjudging him to be guilty without making inquiry into and determining whether appellant was insane at the time he entered his plea.
On November 10, 1975, appellant, accompanied by his counsel, an assistant public defender, entered a plea of guilty to robbery as charged in the information filed against him. Eleven days later, the trial court, after reciting that it had been suggested that appellant might show his mental incompetency as legal cause why sentence should not be imposed, appointed two qualified medical experts to examine him. A hearing was held on February 10, 1976, for the purpose of sentencing, and at this time the trial court found that both psychiatrists had examined appellant and found him to be incompetent “at this time” for sentencing.
The trial court then, in committing appellant to the State Hospital, stated: “. . . where if he becomes competent he’s still within the jurisdiction of this court and he will be brought back, treated accordingly.” At the sentencing hearing, the assistant public defender stated that he didn’t realize the depth of appellant’s psychiatric problem until he had received the medical report and had talked to appellant’s father from New York. The assistant public defender stated that he had talked to appellant and could get answers to his questions, but at the same time, he felt that appellant was probably competent.
However, according to the medical report, the psychiatrists felt that appellant’s “condition being an ongoing one he was probably in the same condition before he entered a plea as he was after the plea.” The assistant public defender then stated: “It’s —based on this information, I’ll ask the Court to allow me to withdraw the plea that the Defendant has entered of guilty so that he might be eligible to go to the State Hospital as being incompetent to stand trial, which I think he clearly is.” The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea and proceeded to adjudge appellant guilty of robbery. Under the circumstances, the trial court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969); and Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975).
REVERSED.
MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trawick v. State, 473 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1985)…ciple also applies to the situation of an appearance in court for purposes of tendering a plea and may serve to raise a question about the defendant’s competency to submit a plea. Baker v. State, 408 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Alleluio v. State, 338 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Appellant asserts that after the acceptance of his guilty pleas, the court was notified of appellant’s state of despondency and of his having contemplated suicide earlier that morning. Appellant argues that this information and…
-
Onnestad v. State, 404 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…to corroborate allegations in his motion to withdraw guilty plea, trial court’s denial of proffer and summary denial of motion constituted reversible error). Appellant cites Kadar v. State, 370 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) and Alleluio v. State, 338 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), as indicating an evidentiary hearing was necessary. In Kadar, however, the motion alleged on its face serious questions as to whether the defendant, who spoke Hungarian, understood English and the significance of his plea. The a…
-
Baker v. State, 408 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…petency presented to the court in the motion and medical reports that an evidentiary hearing [*688] should have been held to determine if the plea was voluntarily entered into by one competent to know the consequences of his plea. Alleluio v. State, 338 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. SCHEB, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- McCARTHY v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1969)
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)