MARLIN DOREN IRVING, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of postconviction relief motion where defendant stated facially sufficient claim that his guilty plea was involuntary due to incompetency and counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to investigate.
A defendant states a facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief when he alleges his plea was involuntary due to incompetency and his attorney was ineffective in failing to investigate that incompetency.
[1] A defendant's affirmative responses during a guilty plea colloquy are insufficient to conclusively refute a facially sufficient claim of incompetency in a postconviction…
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“mere affirmative responses by Irving during the plea colloquy may not be sufficient to conclusively refute his claim of incompetence”
Court's instruction that trial court cannot rely solely on plea colloquy responses to dismiss incompetency claims
Marlin Irving filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming his plea was involuntary due to incomp…
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 Competency To Enter Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marlin Irving appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find that Irving has stated a facially sufficient claim that his plea was involuntary due to his incompetency and that his attorney was ineffective in failing to investigate this. See, e.g., Savage v. State, 530 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We note that the court may again deny Irving’s motion if it is conclusively refuted by the record, but point out that mere affirmative responses by Irving during the plea colloquy may not be sufficient to conclusively refute his claim of incompetence. See Savage, 530 So. 2d at 1079.
We also specifically reverse the portion of the trial court’s order finding Irving’s motion frivolous and declaring that the Department of Corrections would be justified in forfeiting Irving’s gaintime as a sanction. See, e.g., Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (defining a frivolous claim as one that is so devoid of merit on its face that there is little prospect that it can ever succeed).
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Markus Forster v. State, 779 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…administered his medication while being held in pretrial detention. According to Forster, this lack of medication negatively affected his judgment and comprehension. This claim must be addressed on its merits by the trial court. See Irving v. State, 741 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Forster further alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to explore the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, despite being provided with Forster’s extensive psychiatric history. Forster contended…
-
Storey v. State, 32 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…illness. See Forster v. State, 779 So. 2d 550, 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finding a hearing on the merits was required where petitioner claimed his plea was involuntary because he was not administered medication for bipolar disorder); Irving v. State, 741 So. 2d 519, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (noting “that mere affirmative responses by [the defendant] during the plea colloquy may not be sufficient to conclusively l’efute his claim of incompetence”). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. LaROSE and KH…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Rafial A. Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Savage v. State, 530 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)