JOSEPH ALLEN MAYS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reviewed an order denying a motion for postconviction relief. While most claims were affirmed, one claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate competency was reversed and remanded.
The court held that Mays' allegations regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate competency were facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record. Therefore, the summary denial of this claim was improper.
[1] A defendant's allegations of trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to investigate competency and move for a competency hearing state a facially sufficient claim tha…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In ground two, Mr. Mays asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his competency and move for a competency hearing.”
This quote outlines the specific claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that was the focus of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Allen Mays claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating his mental competency and seeking a hearing. Mays alleged he suffere…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Joseph Allen Mays appeals the order summarily denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without comment the summary denial of all but one of Mr. Mays' claims. We reverse and remand the portion of the order that summarily denies ground two.
In ground two, Mr. Mays asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his competency and move for a competency hearing. He argued that at the time of his trial he was suffering from various mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, multiple personality disorder, schizophrenia, and that he was suffering from delusions and hallucinations and hearing voices. He claimed counsel knew he had been under psychiatric care prior to trial, had attempted suicide multiple times, and was a depressive alcoholic. He further argued that counsel's failure to determine his competency prior to trial violated his due process right to not to be tried while incompetent and prejudiced him because he was unable to assist counsel at trial. Had a hearing been held, Mr. Mays claimed, he would have been declared incompetent.
Mr. Mays' allegations are facially sufficient and are not conclusively refuted by the record excerpts of interviews presented at trial attached to the order by the postconviction court. See Houle v. State, 74 So. 3d 143, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Perez v. State, 306 So. 3d 126, 128, 129-30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the postconviction court's order summarily denying ground two and remand for the postconviction court to either attach the portions of the record that conclusively refute ground two or to hold an evidentiary hearing on the narrow claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Mr. Mays' competency and move for a competency determination.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
SILBERMAN, KELLY, and LUCAS JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leander Baldwin, Jr. v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…ne at the time of the offense. A mental disease or defect alone is not enough to establish an insanity defense in Florida. Such a condition must affect the defendant's cognition in the manner specified in Fla. Stat. § 775.027(1). See Perez v. State, 306 So. 3d 126, 130 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("[M]ental illness that does not result in insanity, as defined by section 775.027, Florida Statutes (2013), is not a defense." (citing Chestnut v. State, 538 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1989))). Petitioner presented no evidence tha…
-
Myers v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough) (M.D. Fla. 2025)…evidence that her mental illness made her unable to distinguish right from wrong, or to know what she was doing and its consequences. “[M]ental illness that does not result in insanity, as defined [by Florida law], is not a defense." Perez v. State, 306 So. 3d 126, 130 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Thus, "counsel was not deficient for failing to pursue an unsupported insanity defense." Almeida v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 24-11318, 2024 WL 5482646, at *1 (11th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024). B. Ground Two-Failure to Hir…
Authorities Cited
- Houle v. State, 74 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)