McDowell v. State, 98-0586
| Decision Date | 15 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-0586,98-0586 |
| Citation | 714 So.2d 606 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1664 David McDOWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David McDowell, Miami, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Barbra Amron Weisberg, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
David McDowell appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which he alleged six grounds for relief. The denial was based on the State's response, which did not address the merits of any of Appellant's claims, but urged denial simply because the motion was successive to a previously denied motion to correct illegal sentence. Following the State's recommendation to do so, the trial court had treated the prior motion as a rule 3.850 motion and denied it. The earlier motion challenged the existence of a law forbidding possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, as opposed to laws forbidding possession and forbidding sale, and also challenged whether Appellant's escape charge had been drafted properly.
The first and fourth claims of Appellant's instant motion are legally sufficient and sufficiently disparate from the prior motion to require them to be heard despite the doctrine of successiveness. See Williams v. State, 685 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Kiser v. State, 649 So.2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
In the instant motion, Appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea. His first ground was that his plea was involuntarily entered because he was under the influence of psychotropic drugs which had been prescribed to him for his mental illness, and which prevented him from understanding the full implication of his plea and sentence; had he understood the full implication, he would not have pleaded guilty. This claim is facially sufficient. See Reutter v. State, 590 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Williams, 685 So.2d at 1318; Long v. State, 678 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Campbell v. State, 488 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Appellant's fourth ground was that there was no factual basis for the trial court to accept his plea as to possession with intent to sell; there was a factual basis to support only possession. In effect, Appellant argues that he pleaded guilty to the wrong offense. See State v. Fox, 659 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 668 So.2d 602 (Fla.1996).
The other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swatman v. State, 2D02-154.
...not have pleaded if he had understood the nature of the pleas. Thus he has not stated a facially sufficient claim. See McDowell v. State, 714 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Swatman might have to file a facially sufficient claim on this issue ......
-
Payne v. State
...an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of additional record excerpts conclusively refuting these allegations. See McDowell v. State, 714 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing summary denial based on similar Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. BARFI......
-
Junior v. State, 4D04-3540.
...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......