Campbell v. StateCampbell v. State
Claude Campbell appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief.
Campbell‘s motion states that his guilty plea was not еntered with a full understanding of the consequences because he was under the influence of a heavy dose of medication at the time оf the plea. If true, this could constitute grounds to withdrаw the plea. Stinyard v. State, 476 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We have held that where clаims such as this have been made the record must сonclusively refute the defendant‘s allegations before the court may deny the motion without а hearing. Gunn v. State, 379 So.2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
In the instant case, the trial court attаched a transcript of the plea colloquy to its order denying Campbell‘s motion. Prior to аccepting the plea the court conducted a brief competency hearing, then, having found Campbell competent to proceed, discussed the plea agreement with the attorneys. Defense counsel indicatеd “one slight problem” and asked the court to “rule on it,” referring to the fact that Campbell was “under medication.” Campbell was then brought beforе the court and questioned. As in the Gunn case, the colloquy generally was thorough, though Campbell оnly “replie[d] affirmatively” to most of the questions. Then the court asked Campbell if his medication was “hampering [his] ability to understand and appreсiate what is going on here today.” Campbell first said he did not know, but when the court asked if he understoоd, he replied, “Yeah.”
We recognize that the trial court was in the best position to observe Campbell‘s demeanor and level of awareness at the time of the plea. Howevеr, we must conclude that the record before us does not sufficiently overcome Campbell‘s allegations to permit summary denial of his motiоn. In light of the question of Campbell‘s competency, his apparent lack of articulatеness during the colloquy, and the undisputed fact that hе was drugged to some extent, we are not persuaded by the plea transcript alone that Campbell is not entitled to relief, particularly when it is compared with the extensive inquiry in Onnestad v. State, 404 So.2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this оpinion. Of course, if a hearing is held on Campbеll‘s motion, his allegations are subject to
The remaining grounds raised in Campbell‘s motion are without merit, and the trial court properly denied relief on those grounds.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.