JONATHAN GRIFFIN, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing or explanation.
Appellant pleaded guilty to murder and other charges and sought postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel regarding mental heal…
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 Temporary Insanity Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jonathan Griffin (Appellant) appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.
Appellant entered a negotiated plea to charges of first degree murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, burglary of an occupied conveyance, and grand theft auto. He raised three related, legally sufficient, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) failure to inform him of a temporary insanity defense where counsel was aware of Appellant’s prior mental problems and drug abuse; (2) failure to investigate the temporary insanity defense; and (3) mis-advice as to the availability of the voluntary intoxication defense. In the order on appeal, the trial court considered and adopted the State’s response with attachments, which indicated the need for an evidentiary hearing. However, the trial court summarily denied the motion without either an evidentiary hearing or an explanation why such a hearing was unnecessary.
In response to this court’s order to show cause, the State once again indicates that either an evidentiary hearing is necessary or the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Appellant’s claims. The State acknowledges that the court’s order must be reversed.
We accordingly reverse and remand.
SHAHOOD, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.