Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

502 So. 2d 89

502 So.2d 89

12 Fla.L.Weekly 515

Neeley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 11, 1987

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1987-02-11

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 2000

2 state decisions

Relies on Ream v. State · Chapman v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-02-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant 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.

¶2Appellant 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).

¶3REVERSED and REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
/502/so2d/89 · .json · Public domain