Opinion ID: 1401457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ingestion of Medications.

Text: Appellant next asserts that his guilty plea was involuntary because he was under the influence of two medications prescribed for treatment of his hepatitis-C, Infergen and Ribavirin, which caused severe fatigue and lapses of concentration. According to Appellant, faced with the Hobson's choice of going to trial while experiencing these negative side effects or pleading guilty, he was forced to plead guilty and was thereby deprived of his right to a fair trial guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. During the plea colloquy, the following exchange took place: Judge: [to Appellant] Sir, this afternoon, are you under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, medications, anything that would cloud the way you're thinking? App'ant: No. Judge: And I know you're on medications, but it's not stuff that would effect you mentally ? App'ant: No. (Emphasis added.) Appellant now argues that, despite these sworn statements, the side effects from his medications were so pervasive that he was unable to enter a voluntary guilty plea. However, the record contains substantial evidence to support the trial court's ruling on the plea's voluntariness. Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity. The subsequent presentation of conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics is subject to summary dismissal, as are contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977); see also Bandy v. State, 847 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Mo.Ct.App. 1992) (holding guilty plea not rendered involuntary by ingestion of medications where defendant acknowledged drugs did not impair faculties prior to plea). Appellant's sworn statements during the plea colloquy, coupled with the sworn testimony by Dr. Cecil during Appellant's pretrial motion for continuance, see supra, amounted to substantial evidence that Appellant enjoyed the capacity to comprehend the proceedings. Additionally, Appellant was alert and responsive during the proceedings prior to and throughout the guilty plea. [6] As such, the trial court's finding that the medications did not render the plea involuntary or unintelligent was not clearly erroneous. Rigdon, 144 S.W.3d at 288.