Ruiz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ruiz v. State

454 So. 2d 68, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1795, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14658

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 1984

DocketNo. 84-1053

StatusPublished

This text of 454 So. 2d 68 (Ruiz 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

Ruiz v. State, 454 So. 2d 68, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1795, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14658 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary denial of a motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 3.850 Fla.R.Crim.P.

The defendant’s first claim is of ineffective assistance of counsel. This is refuted by the plea colloquy and therefore is without merit. See Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981). The defendant’s second claim is of failure to establish a factual basis for the plea. There is no showing in the record that the state submitted any facts whatsoever to support the plea. The state contends, and we agree, that there was no allegation of prejudice or manifest injustice in this regard, (as shown by the indictment and the defendant’s admissions in a subsequently filed motion to mitigate) thus the trial court will be affirmed. See State v. Kendrick 336 So.2d 353 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975); Fitzpatrick v. State, 414 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The final point alleged that the defendant pleaded guilty through an interpreter who he did not fully understand and who pleaded him guilty to second degree murder when the interpreter knew the defendant did not intend to plead guilty to second degree murder but intended to plead guilty to manslaughter. While the record of the plea colloquy indicates an interpreter was present there is no indication that he was used and there is nothing to refute this allegation. The state admits this deficiency. This cause is hereby returned to the trial court to attach to its summary denial the records refuting the allegation or to conduct an evidentiary hearing thereon.

Therefore the order under review is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to attach to any summary denial the record refuting allegations as they may relate to the understanding of the interpreter or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Any order entered thereon or thereafter is to be reviewable by a new appeal. Lambert v. State, 446 So.2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary denial of a motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 3.850 Fla.R.Crim.P.

The defendant’s first claim is of ineffective assistance of counsel. This is refuted by the plea colloquy and therefore is without merit. See Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981). The defendant’s second claim is of failure to establish a factual basis for the plea. There is no showing in the record that the state submitted any facts whatsoever to support the plea. The state contends, and we agree, that there was no allegation of prejudice or manifest injustice in this regard, (as shown by the indictment and the defendant’s admissions in a subsequently filed motion to mitigate) thus the trial court will be affirmed. See State v. Kendrick 336 So.2d 353 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975); Fitzpatrick v. State, 414 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The final point alleged that the defendant pleaded guilty through an interpreter who he did not fully understand and who pleaded him guilty to second degree murder when the interpreter knew the defendant did not intend to plead guilty to second degree murder but intended to plead guilty to manslaughter. While the record of the plea colloquy indicates an interpreter was present there is no indication that he was used and there is nothing to refute this allegation. The state admits this deficiency. This cause is hereby returned to the trial court to attach to its summary denial the records refuting the allegation or to conduct an evidentiary hearing thereon.

Therefore the order under review is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to attach to any summary denial the record refuting allegations as they may relate to the understanding of the interpreter or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Any order entered thereon or thereafter is to be reviewable by a new appeal. Lambert v. State, 446 So.2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 So. 2d 68, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1795, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack