Evans v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 9, 1989

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-03-09

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1992

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]hough appellant's motion is arguably conclusory [sic] and borders on unintelligible, according the motion a liberal interpretation, we discern a marginally sufficient facial allegation that appellant was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea and therefore his plea was involuntary.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 558 So. 2d 450 - Gust v. State

Relies on Morrison v. State · 160 So. 2d 726 - Andrews v. State · 243 So. 2d 10 - Maxwell v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-03-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SMITH, Chief Judge.

¶1Appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief on the ground that it is facially insufficient. Though appellant’s motion is arguably con-clusory and borders on unintelligible, according the motion a liberal interpretation, we discern a marginally sufficient facial allegation — that appellant was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea and therefore his plea was involuntary. See Morrison v. State, 283 So.2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Maxwell v. State, 243 So.2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); and Andrews v. State, 160 So.2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The cause is *34therefore remanded to the trial, court to either attach those portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s allegation or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue.

¶2REVERSED and REMANDED.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.