Junior v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Junior v. State

920 So. 2d 127, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 794, 2006 WL 167851

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 2006

DocketNo. 4D04-3540

StatusPublished

This text of 920 So. 2d 127 (Junior v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Junior v. State, 920 So. 2d 127, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 794, 2006 WL 167851 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Junior appeals from an order summarily denying his motion to withdraw plea, which was treated as a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of three of the four grounds without further discussion, but reverse as to the second ground, see McDowell v. State, 714 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing in part summary denial of post-conviction motion, including ground alleging that guilty plea was involuntarily entered because defendant was under influence of psychotropic drugs, prescribed for his mental illness, which prevented him from understanding full implication of his plea), and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute that ground for relief.

Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded.

STEVENSON, C.J., SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Michael Junior appeals from an order summarily denying his motion to withdraw plea, which was treated as a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of three of the four grounds without further discussion, but reverse as to the second ground, see McDowell v. State, 714 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing in part summary denial of post-conviction motion, including ground alleging that guilty plea was involuntarily entered because defendant was under influence of psychotropic drugs, prescribed for his mental illness, which prevented him from understanding full implication of his plea), and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute that ground for relief.

Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded.

STEVENSON, C.J., SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 So. 2d 127, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 794, 2006 WL 167851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/junior-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack