From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 30, 2006
933 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2D05-5448.

April 19, 2006. Rehearing Denied May 30, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Robert A. Foster, Jr., Judge.


Miguel Angel Colon challenges the postconviction court's summary denial of his motion for relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The records attached to the postconviction court's order do not conclusively refute claim nine of Mr. Colon's motion. Consequently, we reverse and remand as to this claim. We affirm, without further comment, all other aspects of the postconviction court's denial of relief.

Mr. Colon was charged with possession of cocaine, possession of cannabis, armed trafficking in heroin, conspiracy to traffic in heroin, and carrying a concealed firearm. He pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis. A jury convicted him of the other offenses. The trial court sentenced Mr. Colon to five concurrent ten-year prison sentences.

In claim nine of his rule 3.850 motion, Mr. Colon contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court accepting his guilty plea to possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis. According to Mr. Colon, at the time of his plea, he suffered from a mental defect and was taking psychotropic medications. Allegedly, his trial counsel knew of these facts. Mr. Colon argues that his plea was involuntary under these circumstances. This claim is facially sufficient. See Szeremi v. State, 862 So.2d 935, 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Robinson v. State, 909 So.2d 497, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Mosley v. State, 888 So.2d 734, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

The postconviction court denied claim nine as conclusory, without attaching any record attachments conclusively refuting the claim. On remand, the postconviction court should attach to any subsequent order any records that conclusively refute Mr. Colon's claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing on claim nine.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Colon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 30, 2006
933 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

Colon v. State

Case Details

Full title:Miguel Angel COLON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 30, 2006

Citations

933 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Mungen v. State

Such a claim is facially sufficient and cognizable under rule 3.850. See Colon v. State, 933 So.2d 2, 2006 WL…