Saxon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saxon v. State

384 So. 2d 35, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16124

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 30, 1980

DocketNo. 80-170

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 35 (Saxon 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

Saxon v. State, 384 So. 2d 35, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16124 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, Judge.

The petitioner pro se appeals from an order of the trial court denying his petition to vacate his judgment and sentence. He claims his plea was not voluntarily entered, one of the express grounds for collateral attack set forth in Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner al[36]*36leged he was ill and under heavy sedation. On the date he entered his “nolo” plea he had just been released from the hospital. He had a duodenal ulcer, suffered considerable bleeding, was “stabilized” in the hospital and released. The hospital records attached do not indicate whether pain-killers or sedatives were given to the petitioner.

The motion, however, is defective on its face because it does not state whether an appeal was taken, and whether other post-conviction remedies were sought, as required by Rule 8.850(b) and (c). We therefore affirm the lower court’s order, but without prejudice to the petitioner to refile upon compliance with Rule 3.850(b) and (c). Catlett v. State, 367 So.2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Scott v. State, 364 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

CROSS and UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.

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

SHARP, Judge.

The petitioner pro se appeals from an order of the trial court denying his petition to vacate his judgment and sentence. He claims his plea was not voluntarily entered, one of the express grounds for collateral attack set forth in Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner al[36]*36leged he was ill and under heavy sedation. On the date he entered his “nolo” plea he had just been released from the hospital. He had a duodenal ulcer, suffered considerable bleeding, was “stabilized” in the hospital and released. The hospital records attached do not indicate whether pain-killers or sedatives were given to the petitioner.

The motion, however, is defective on its face because it does not state whether an appeal was taken, and whether other post-conviction remedies were sought, as required by Rule 8.850(b) and (c). We therefore affirm the lower court’s order, but without prejudice to the petitioner to refile upon compliance with Rule 3.850(b) and (c). Catlett v. State, 367 So.2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Scott v. State, 364 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

CROSS and UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 So. 2d 35, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxon-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack