Neeley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neeley v. State

502 So. 2d 89, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 515, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6674

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2839

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 89 (Neeley 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

Neeley v. State, 502 So. 2d 89, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 515, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6674 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure without an evidentiary hearing.

Appellant contends that the trial court’s examination of the transcript of the change-of-plea hearing did not furnish an adequate basis to determine whether his plea was induced by an improper promise or misunderstanding. Nor did it establish whether the defendant was still under the influence of withdrawal from heavy psychotropic medication and therefore unable to make a rational decision regarding his plea. We agree and reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. We remand this cause to the trial court with directions to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on the grounds raised in appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. See Ream v. State, 449 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Chapman v. State, 444 So.2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure without an evidentiary hearing.

Appellant contends that the trial court’s examination of the transcript of the change-of-plea hearing did not furnish an adequate basis to determine whether his plea was induced by an improper promise or misunderstanding. Nor did it establish whether the defendant was still under the influence of withdrawal from heavy psychotropic medication and therefore unable to make a rational decision regarding his plea. We agree and reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. We remand this cause to the trial court with directions to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on the grounds raised in appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. See Ream v. State, 449 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Chapman v. State, 444 So.2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 89, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 515, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neeley-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack