ARTHUR E. SAUCIER, 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 reversed the summary denial of post-conviction relief on ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding trial counsel's failure to evaluate and disclose the defendant's mental condition and medication effects, finding the claims facially sufficient and not refuted by the record.
Trial counsel's failure to have a defendant's mental state evaluated and to inform the trial court of the defendant's mental illness and medication effects constitutes facially sufficient ineffective assistance of counsel claims that must proceed to an evidentiary hearing or record review.
[1] Trial counsel's failure to have a defendant's mental state evaluated and to disclose the defendant's mental illness and medication effects to the trial court, when counse…
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 intelligenceArthur E. Saucier appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion, alleging his trial counsel failed to have his mental state eva…
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 Mental Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Arthur E. Saucier appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to have appellant’s mental state evaluated, and failing to inform the trial court of the defendant’s mental illness or the effect of defendant’s prescribed medication upon his mental processes, when counsel was aware of defendant’s current mental problems. See Johns v. State, 721 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(holding that defendant’s response in plea colloquy that he was not under the effects of any medication, drugs, or condition that affected his ability to understand the proceedings did not conclusively demonstrate competency when he entered his plea). Appellant also alleges that he would not have pled, but would have proceeded to trial, but for counsel’s ineffective assistance. See Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
The appellant has stated facially sufficient claims relating to his mental condition that are not refuted by the record. Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of post-conviction relief as to these mental condition claims and remand to the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting these claims or hold an evidentiary hearing. Appellant also raises other claims that we reject without further comment.
Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded with instructions.
KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Johns v. State, 721 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)