TODD SCHULTHEIS, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed in part a postconviction court's denial of Todd Schultheis's motion for relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the postconviction court failed to attach supporting record excerpts for several ineffective-assistance claims and improperly rejected a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the competency-to-stand-trial issue.
The appellate court reversed the denial of relief as to claims two, five, seven, nine, and ten, requiring the postconviction court to attach supportive record excerpts or conduct an evidentiary hearing. The court also reversed the denial of the first claim, holding that an ineffective-assistance argument based on counsel's failure to raise competency is narrow and cognizable in postconviction proceedings and was not procedurally barred.
[1] A postconviction court must attach record excerpts supporting the denial of relief when the record refutes the claims.
[2] Failure to attach record excerpts supporting the denial of claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel requires reversal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“With respect to the second, fifth, seventh, ninth, and tenth claims in appellant's motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, this omission requires reversal.”
Establishes that the postconviction court's failure to attach record excerpts supporting denial of relief requires reversal on those claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTodd Schultheis filed a postconviction motion for relief raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court denied the moti…
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 Procedural Bar cases and more on FLexlaw
When the postconviction court denied appellant Todd Schultheis’s motion for postconviction relief, the court concluded the record of Schultheis’s trial refuted some claims, but the court did not attach any record excerpts supporting the denial of relief. With respect to the second, fifth, seventh, ninth, and tenth claims in appellant’s motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, this omission requires reversal. See Gay v. State, 995 So.2d 541, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Miller v. State, 905 So.2d 981, 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We remand the order denying relief as to these claims and direct the postconviction court to either attach supportive record excerpts or conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
We also reverse the denial of relief as to appellant’s first claim, in which he argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of competency to stand trial. As the postconviction court explained, a defendant cannot cloak an argument of incompetency, which should be raised on direct appeal, as an ineffective-assistance claim. See Patton v. State, 784 So.2d 380, 393 (Fla.2000). A narrow argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the competency issue, however, is cognizable in the postconviction posture. See generally Carroll v. State, 815 So.2d 601, 610 (Fla.2002). The argument as phrased in appellant’s motion is, at its heart, an ineffective-assistance claim and was not procedurally barred, as the postconviction court concluded. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of relief as to this claim and remand for the postconviction court to address it on the merits. We affirm the order in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
KAHN, DAVIS and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…quences of his plea, that he had a history of mental illness, had not taken his schizophrenia medication, was suffering from delusions and hearing voices at the time of the plea and that he informed counsel of his condition. Cf. Schultheis v. State, 12 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“A narrow argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the competency issue, however, is cognizable in the postconviction posture”); Coker v. State, 978 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (recognizing the failure…
-
Heath A. Demarco v. State, 31 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ffective assistance of counsel claim, and the narrow argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a defendant’s competency is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. See Carroll v. Slate, 815 So. 2d 601, 610 (Fla.2002); Schultheis v. State, 12 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Demar-co’s motion and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Carroll v. State, 815 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2002)
- Patton v. State, 784 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2000)
- Miller v. State, 905 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- GAY v. State, 995 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)