Saxon v. State, 80-170

Decision Date30 April 1980
Docket NumberNo. 80-170,80-170
Citation384 So.2d 35
PartiesLeo Clyde SAXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Leo Clyde Saxon, pro se.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Phillip D. Havens, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

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 alleged 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 3.850(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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Martin v. State, 87-519
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1987
    ...an appeal or other post-conviction remedies had been undertaken, Evans v. State, 388 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Saxon v. State, 384 So.2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and it was not under oath. See Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla.1986); Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985). However......
  • Jolly v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1981
    ...was properly denied. The 3.800 motion as filed does not substantially comply with the requirements of rule 3.850. See Saxon v. State, 384 So.2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Even if we treated the motion as a 3.850 motion, we would set aside the judgment as well as the sentence, not merely remand......
  • Lee v. State, 78-2369
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 1980

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT