NORA CHRISTINE SWAILS, 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 denial of Rule 3.850 motion and remanded for evidentiary hearing on claim that counsel failed to investigate mental state defenses, while affirming denial of seven other ineffective assistance claims.
A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate mental state defenses states a facially sufficient allegation requiring an evidentiary hearing when the plea transcript does not conclusively refute it.
[1] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate mental state defenses states a facially sufficient claim requiring an evidentiary hearin…
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 intelligenceNora Christine Swails pleaded nolo contendere to first degree murder and filed a Rule 3.850 motion raising multiple claims of ineffective assistance o…
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 Failure To Investigate cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, C.J.
Nora Christine Swails appeals the denial of her motion made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in which she raises numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel relating to her plea of nolo contendere to first degree murder. Although we affirm the denial of seven of those claims, we find that the third claim raises a facially sufficient allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate defenses relating to appellant’s mental state. Neither the reasons stated by the trial court nor the portions of the record attached conclusively refute this claim.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Urquhart v. State, 676 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (remanding for further proceedings where appellant alleged his counsel failed to investigate appellant’s psychiatric condition and his history of mental disorders and plea transcript did not refute this allegation of ineffective counsel); Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing where plea transcript did not refute appellant’s allegation that he had told defense counsel he was on drugs during the commission of the crime, and his counsel failed to investigate intoxication defense).
BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Swain v. Bernie Howell, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Cole Augustus Urquhart v. State, 676 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)