FRANKIE W. SPIVEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
This case involves an inmate seeking post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found that the inmate's claim regarding counsel's failure to investigate a voluntary intoxication defense was facially sufficient and remanded the case for further proceedings on that specific issue.
Yes, the allegations are facially sufficient because voluntary intoxication is a recognized defense to specific intent crimes like theft, and counsel's failure to investigate this potential defense could constitute ineffective assistance.
[1] A claim for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel is facially sufficient if it alleges that counsel failed to investigate a voluntary intoxica…
[2] Theft is a specific intent crime.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The record reflects that appellant entered a no contest plea to a charge of third-degree felony grand theft; that he was placed on probation; and that he subsequently admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation, which resulted in a prison sentence.”
Establishes the procedural posture and background facts of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant pleaded no contest to grand theft, was placed on probation, and later admitted to violating probation, resulting in a prison sentence. H…
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 Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of an order denying his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking post-conviction relief. Although appellant’s motion claims entitlement to relief for a number of reasons, we conclude that only one merits discussion.
The record reflects that appellant entered a no contest plea to a charge of third-degree felony grand theft; that he was placed on probation; and that he subsequently admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation, which resulted in a prison sentence. Appellant’s motion alleges that his original trial counsel was ineffective because he faded to investigate the possibility of a voluntary intoxication defense to the grand theft charge, notwithstanding the fact that counsel was aware before appellant entered his plea that appellant “was highly intoxicated prior to and during the commission of the alleged offense, and was incapable of committing a specific intent crime as charged in the information.”
Theft is a specific intent crime. Redding v. State, 666 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Voluntary intoxication is a recognized defense to specific intent crimes. Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, appellant’s allegations are facially sufficient to state a claim for relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Because the trial court denied the motion without addressing the merits of this ground, we reverse and remand as to this ground only, with directions that the trial court either attach to its order denying relief those portions of the record which conclusively establish that appellant is entitled to no relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frey v. State, 708 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1998)…lary and burglary of a structure are specific intent crimes). . See Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (escape is specific intent crime), overruled on other grounds, Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982). . See Spivey v. State, 680 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(theft is a specific intent crime) (citing Redding v. State, 666 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)). . See Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262, 1265 (Fla.1985) (holding that arson is a general intent crime). . There may be an em…
-
Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…est the voluntary intoxication instruction. At the time the crimes occurred, January 4,1999, voluntary intoxication was a defense to the specific intent crime of grand theft. See Locklear v. State, 847 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Spivey v. State, 680 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Ch. 99-174, § 1, at 968, Laws of Fla. (creating section 775.051, Florida Statutes, which abrogates voluntary intoxication as a defense, effective October 1,1999). A review of the trial transcript reflects, however, that Rudolf…
-
Ervin Alphonso Bartley v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…gally sufficient to state a claim for relief. Aggravated assault is a specific intent crime. E.g., State v. Shorette, 404 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Voluntary intoxication is a recognized defense to specific intent crimes. E.g., Spivey v. State, 680 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Allegations substantively indistinguishable from those made by appellant have repeatedly been held sufficient to state a claim for relief. E.g., Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Brunson v. State, 605 So. 2d 10…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kennedy Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Swain v. Bernie Howell, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Redding v. State, 666 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)