Filing # 171386451 E-Filed 04/19/2023 11:05:33 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
CASE NO. 2021-CF-0286
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, CASE NO. 2022-CF-1143
Defendant.
__________________________________/

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA AFTER SENTENCING

Defendant NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE (“Gillespie”), a nonlawyer appearing pro se,

hereby files Motion To Withdraw Plea After Sentencing, and states:

1. Gillespie moves pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l) to withdraw his pleas of no contest

made on March 20, 2023 while held in the Marion County Jail in the above captioned cases

because the pleas violate his rights as a Defendant, are unjust, and resulted in unlawful

sentences. Gillespie's pleas were involuntary to get out of jail while held on a no-bond order.

2. Separately and in addition, Gillespie asserts that the trial judge, the Hon. Peter Brigham,

lacked proper jurisdiction after Gillespie served a meritorious motion to disqualify the Judge on

January 3, 2023. That issue and other issues are currently before the Fifth District Court of

Appeal in case nos. 5D23-0814, 5D23-0888, 5D23-0913 and 5D23-1176.

3. Four (4) counts of one-part consent telephone recording in two cases (2019-CF-4193 and

2021-CF-0286) are lawfully permitted, so any sentence in those cases is unlawful. Judge

Brigham is bound by the rule of law to dismiss each case as shown in Gillespie's Amended

Motions To Dismiss, under Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause,

and 18 USC 2511(2)(d), Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications

prohibited. Gillespie was a party to the communication and not acting under color of law,

pursuant to the one-party consent federal statute, 18 USC 2511(2)(d), which is the Law of the
MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA AFTER SENTENCING

Land in Florida. Separately and in addition, Gillespie moved to dismiss each case under the U.S.

Sixth Amendment because a witness favorable to him in each case is deceased.

4. In the remaining case no. 2022-CF-1143, battery by a detained person, Gillespie filed a

claim of immunity under Section 776.032 of the Florida Statutes, and is entitled to a stand your

ground hearing, and ultimately a dismissal of the charge.

5. The foregoing raises constitutional issues of due process denied to Gillespie.

6. The Court ruled Gillespie was indigent during a hearing on October 26, 2022. Gillespie

has a right to counsel under the U.S. Sixth Amendment. Gillespie did not validly waive his right

to counsel prior to entering a no contest plea. The court's deprivation of the Defendant's right to

assistance of counsel without valid waiver was sufficient to constitute prejudice and manifest

injustice. See Robles v. State, 336 So.3d 378 (2022). In Tubbs v. State, 229 So.3d 1256 (2017),

the District Court of Appeal held that an evidentiary hearing was required on a motion to

withdraw a guilty plea.

7. On January 25, 2023, Judge Brigham held an unannounced bench trial and found

Gillespie guilty of direct criminal contempt for speaking too loud during a hearing on January 3,

2023, and immediately sent him to the Marion County Jail for 30 days. The transcript shows

Gillespie said, "The State already submitted an order to you." The Court responded "Settle

down". (Transcript January 3, 2023, page 3, lines 13-15). Previously ASA Parodi emailed the

Judge asking if this hearing was necessary, since the state did not object to Gillespie's motion to

waive confidentially for a report finding him competent to stand trial. Gillespie appeared pro se

on January 3, 2023. Gillespie appeared pro se on January 25, 2023 during the bench trial where

he was found guilty and immediately taken to jail for 30 days.

8. Later on January 3, 2023 Judge Brigham accused Gillespie of yelling at him, on page 4:

2
MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA AFTER SENTENCING

20 THE DEFENDANT: May I, may I speak?

21 THE COURT: If you’re not going to yell at me, yes.
22 THE DEFENDANT: No, I’m not going to yell at Your
23 Honor.
24 THE COURT: Well, you already have.
25 THE DEFENDANT: I, I just tried to speak up. I
1 have a speech impairment. It’s hard for me to project
2 my voice.

9. Gillespie was evaluated by Dr. Jane Scheuerle, Ed.D., CCC-SLP, Professor, University

of South Florida, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, in Tampa, and

provided the attached three page report as co-Director, Tampa Bay Craniofacial Center to Dr.

Robert E. Williams, Ed.D., Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Department of Labor and

Employment Security, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, on June 2, 1993, that states in part:

"…Mr. Gillespie has sustained the surgical results of multiple treatments for a congenital
cleft lip and palate. While he is facially intact, he retains several incomplete elements of
the sequelae of this congenital dysmorphology. Because of the oro-nasal fistula and velar
limits, Mr. Gillespie is utilizing extreme measures to make his speech intelligible. He is
applying undue stress to the laryngeal and pharyngeal musculature a control the normal
air stream. Because of his extra effort in striving to meet the demands of society, he is at
risk for damaging his larynx. Also, the unnatural openings between the nose and mouth
invite incidence of infection and irritation to sensitive tissues that were never meant to
associate in this way. Exchange of food stuffs and secretions between the two cavities
must be stopped to promote complete healing and maximal function…"

"…Because of his present oro-facial-pharyngeal status, Mr. Gillespie is not advised to

use his full voice in long-term verbalization. That is, prior to closure of the fistulae, and
correction of the palate, he would be ill advised to lecture, or undertake public speaking.
He can communicate intelligibly on a one-to-one basis and as such he displays an astute
mind with considerable experience with interpersonal communication. This level of
communication is possible due to Mr. Gillespie's conscientious and accurate speech
articulation. When he attempts to use a stronger (louder) voice, the increased air pressure
increases the hypernasal resonance and thereby decreases the effectiveness of his speech.
He looses intelligibility and fatigues rapidly.

"…Mr Gillespie is experiencing severe speech expression problems due to inadequate

intra-oral and oronasal structures. Although he has had several surgeries in an earnest
attempt to resolve this problem, none of the procedures have completed the treatment he
requires in order to produce clear verbal communication."

3
MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA AFTER SENTENCING

10. In 1994 Gillespie moved to Portland Oregon to become a patient of Dr. Robert Blakeley,

Ph.D., Professor of Speech Pathology, and Director of the Craniofacial Disorders Program, at the

Oregon Health Sciences University, as shown in the attached letter of June 1, 1994. Gillespie

wore a temporary speech prosthesis for a number of years, but was unable to get the results

sought by Dr. Blakeley. Eventually the prosthesis was no longer viable, leaving Gillespie with

his current speech disability.

11. On April 14, 2023, Gillespie's primary care doctor in Ocala agreed to refer him for

additional surgery to correct velopharyngeal insufficiency after hearing what happened in court.

12. Gillespie's Amended Motions To Dismiss the one-party consent telephone recording

cases, 2029-CF-4193 and 2021-CF-0286, were filed on January 23, 2023 at 10:28 PM and 10:30

PM. Gillespie's Notice of Claim of Immunity Under Section 776.032 Florida Statutes was filed

on January 23, 2023 at 10:33 PM. Gillespie was jailed for 30 days by Judge Brigham on direct

criminal contempt January 25, 2023 at 4:25 PM.

13. On February 17, 2023, Gillespie argued at a hearing while incarcerated that criminal

contempt proceedings in this matter constitute Double Jeopardy, see attached a handwritten

pleading citing De La Portilla v State, 142 So3d 928, etc. Judge Brigham said he would take the

matter under advisement, but never made a ruling. Instead, the Judge later forfeited his bond on

the state's motion and held him on no-bond status. Gillespie plead no contest to get out of jail.

14. As a practical matter, because of his pleas, Gillespie is unable to get employment driving

for Uber or Lyft, for failing a Checkr criminal background check, and even denied employment

delivering food, notwithstanding adjudication was withheld in all three cases. Prior to this

matter, Gillespie, age 67, had never been convicted of a crime.

4
MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA AFTER SENTENCING

WHEREFORE, Gillespie moves this Honorable Court under Rule 3.170(l) to withdraw

his pleas of no contest made on March 20, 2023 while held in the Marion County Jail in the

above captioned cases.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED April 19, 2023.

Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant pro se

11100 SW 93rd Court Rd., Suite 10-220
Ocala, FL 34481-5188
Phone: 352-239-9037
Email: celticein@yahoo.com

VERIFICATION OF NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,

F.S. § 92.525(2) Verification of documents

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and that the
facts stated in it are true.

April 19, 2023

Neil Joseph Gillespie Date

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 19, 2023 the Defendant's Motion To Withdraw Plea
After Sentencing was served on the Florida Portal to:

State Attorney’s Office

110 North West 1st Avenue
Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
Eservicemarion@Sao5.Org

and to the names on the Florida Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents.

Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant pro se

5
June 2, 1993 Department of Communication Sciences
and Disorders
College of Arts and Sciences
University of South Florida
Robert E. Williams, Ed.D. 4202 East Fowler Avenue, BEH 255
certified Rehabilitation Counselor Tampa, Florida 33620-8100
Department of Labor and Employment Security (813) 974-2006
Divisional of vocational Rehabilitation FAX (813) 974-2668
11213 B North Nebraska Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33612

Re.: Neil J. Gillespie

Dear Dr. Willia~s,

Thank you for your letter of inquiry concerning Mr.

Neil Gillespie's health and employment status and
potential. Each of your five questions concerning Mr.
Gillespie's diagnosis and treatment plan is listed and
addressed below.

1. What is Mr. Gillespie's disability (ies) and what

is the level of severity? -.,.
Mr. Gillespie has sustained the surgical results
of mUltiple treatments for a congenital cleft lip and
palate. While he is facially intact, he retains several
incomplete elements of the sequelae of this congenital
dysmorphology. Because of the oro-nasal fistula and
velar limits, Mr. Gillespie is utilizing extreme measures
to make his speech intelligible. He is applying undue
stress to the laryngeal and pharyngeal musculature a
control the normal air stream. Because of his extra
effort in striving to meet the demands of society, he is
at risk for damaging his larynx. Also, the unnatural
openings between the nose and mouth invite incidence of
infection and irritation to sensitive tissues that were
never meant to associate in this way. Exchange of food
stuffs and secretions between the two cavities must be
stopped to promote complete healing and maximal function.

2. What is Mr. Gillespie's functional level? What

physical limitations (e.g., speaking, hearing,
communicating, etc.) are imposed by the disabilities?
Because of his present oro-facial-pharyngeal
status, Mr. Gillespie is not advised to use his full voice
in long-term verbalization. That is, prior to closure of
the fistulae, and correction of the palate, he would be
ill advised to lecture, or undertake pUblic speaking. He
can communicate intelligibly on a one-to-one basis and as
such he displays an astute mind with considerable .~
experience with interpersonal communication. This level
of communication is possible due to Mr. Gillespie's
conscientious and accurate speech articulation. When he
attempts to use a stronger (louder) voice, the increased

'<\MPA ST. PETERSBURG SARASOTA FORT MYERS LAKELAND

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FlORIOA IS m AFFIRMATIVE ACTION I EOUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION
air pressure increases the hypernasal resonance and
thereby decreases the effectiveness of his speech. He
looses intelligibility and fatigues rapidly.

Because I have no objective data on his hearing

status, I can only be suspicious that it is currently
within normal range, but also that he has sustained the
effects of early, untreated middle ear effusions that
usually result in conductive hearing loss during infancy.
effort was seen yesterday at the Tampa Bay Craniofacial
Center for assessment of the current status of his
congenital orofacial cleft condition. Mr Gillespie is
experiencing severe speech expression problems due to
inadequate intra-oral and oronasal structures. Although
he has had several surgeries in an earnest attempt to
resolve this problem, none of the procedures have
completed the treatment he requires in order to produce
clear verbal communication ..

3. What is the probable future course of the

disability (ies)?
If untreated, Mr. Gillespie rjsks irritation and
abuse with abrasion to the laryngeal tfssues, continued
irritation to the upper airway and mutual irritation and
possible infection to the oral and nasal mucosa due to the
uncontrolled exchange of cavity contents during every day
living activities.

4. Are there any work environments that must be

avoided?
If untreated, Mr. Gillespie must work in settings
that provide minimal irritants to the nasal, oral and
pharyngeal mucosa. He must avoid excessive drying of
those tissues and the linings of the larynx. He must not
shout, use his speaking voice in excess, or be exposed to
excessive or continual loud noise because of both the
hearing factor and the need to override the noise with use
of a loud voice.

5. will treatment ease, alleviate, or remove the

disability (ies)? If so, what treatment is recommended?
Treatments are available to alleviate the current
problems and remaining dysmorphologies that underlie the
problems cited above. However, the exact mode of
treatment requires an objective examination of Mr.
Gillespie's intra-oral, oro-nasal, and oro-pharyngeal
structures. The approach that has been suggested by the
Craniofacial Team at the Tampa Bay Craniofacial Center
includes the following steps.
A. - out patient hospitalization for nasendoscopy to
determine the present cause of immobility in the soft
tissue of the soft palate and to visualize the extent of
the nasopharyngeal gap. If the last surgical result has
modified over time, it mqy be desirable to surgically
 modify the present condition by severing any tethering
tissue that is limiting palatal function. Prior or
sUbsequent to the hospital experience, a complete
aUdiological assessment would be helpful to rule out any
middle ear dysmorphologies connected with the congenital
problem. .
·B. - Clini9al observation indicates that following
this careful, objective examination, Mr. Gillespie will
need surgical correction of (a) the anterior oronasal
fistula; (b) bone graft to complete the maxillary alveolar
arch; and (c) 'secondary palatoplasty to form a pharyngeal
flap to reduce the hypernasality. [Please note that the
order in which these are listed assure that the separation
of cavities, the continuation of the airway and the
skeletal support of soft tissue modification will prevent
any' future deterioration of these same tissues.] ,. ".,'
, . c.' :.-Following surgeries to correct all ·the current
interfering dysmorphologies, Mr. Gillespie will need to
'.' have sixmontlls of speech therapy to 'assure' that he no
.'c longer over-activates his larynx and' learns to utilize
;. fully 'th.e're-confiqilred oral and oro";;pharyngeal· ,,"
: structures. ' " ," '
. ·,;':::;Due to his current physical disability Mr. Gillespie
is ':experiencing rejection in job applications •. It is the
opinion of the Craniofacial Team that correction of the
'identified sequelae of the congenital dysmorphology, this
young may will be able to find employment in any current
or emerging job site that requires his type of skills. He
is competent in matters of business, and has a keen
interest in dealing with people~ He may seek employment
in human service areas, personnel management, or
counseling whether in business or in some specialized area.,
of human communication. As a student at the University of
South Florida and a promising contributor to our
community, this young man needs support to pursue
. appropriate treatment for the remaining dysmorphologies of
his mouth, throat and face. ' .
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance
. to you in your efforts to provide the needed assistance to
Mr Gillespie.

fLe~:l~y~,~'t.G-<A.,c...'l/t.."',
~/i6 euerle, CCC-SLPı
Professorı
co-Director, Tampa Bay Craniofacial Centerı
 OREGON
mı
I-IEALTI-I SCIENCES UNIVERSIlY
CIIII..I) I)EVELOPMENT & REHAUIfJTA'Il0N CENTER
1'.0. Box 57/i~ Portland, Oregon 97207-0574
Services for G1., ildre1l u,itb Special J/eallb Needs
l}1lfl..ersity AjJUfated Plugrllll1

June I, 1994

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Neil Gillespieı

This 38 year old I1lan has a repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate. His primary surgery wası
done in Pennsylvania and he had SOITIe secondary work including a pharyngeal flap forı
speech, in Florida.ı

Since speech treatlnent for serious hypernasality has been unsuccessful up to this point, theı
patient came to Ine for consultation about a speech plan.ı

Examination shows objectionable hypernasality with moderate nasal emission of air whichı
markedly weakens all 16 air pressure phonemes. Use of the fiber-optic nasendoscope on Mayı
26th verified that the pharyngeal flap, done three years ago (for speech), has pulled loose.ı

The treatment plan is to utilize a telnporary speech prosthesis (for circa two years) toı
markedly obturate all sounds froln entering the nasal cavity. After normal oral resonance isı
obtained and Inaintained for about four to five ITIonths, an obturator reduction program wouldı
begin whereby the throat and palate 111usculature would be "challenged" by slowly making theı
obturator sl11aller, in stages. At the end of approximately two years, it is expected that oral-ı
nasal resonance anti oral air pressure would be close to normal limits and that pharyngeal and·ı
palate 111usculalurc \vould have inlproved considerably. This is expected to nlake the patient'sı
velopharyngeal systenl nluch Inore anlenabie to a surgical procedure to substitute for theı
speech prosthesis \vithout c0l11promising the patient's nasal airway.ı

Respectfully sublnitted,ı

Robert W. Blakeley, Ph.D.ı

Professor of Speech Pathology,ı
Director, Craniofacial Disorders Progralllı

blak/b:gille~pi.