KENNETH JACKMAN, 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.
Kenneth Jackman appeals the trial court's summary denial of his post-conviction motion claiming he was incompetent to enter his plea due to mental illness and drug influence. The court reverses and remands, holding that Jackman should have been afforded the opportunity to amend his legally insufficient motion rather than having it summarily denied.
The court reversed the summary denial and held that because it was not apparent that the defects in Jackman's motion could not be corrected, he should have been given a reasonable time to amend his motion to state the same grounds in a facially sufficient manner pursuant to Spera v. State. The trial court was also directed on remand to attach the plea form and plea colloquy transcript if it subsequently denies the amended motion on the merits.
[1] A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel must allege facts demonstrating that counsel was aware of the defendant's mental or s…
[2] A trial court must attach portions of the record to a summary denial order when refuting a defendant's postconviction allegations.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“counsel should have investigated his competency to proceed, as an evaluation would have revealed he was incompetent to stand trial, based on his history of mental illness and an evaluation that occurred several years after the plea”
Establishes Jackman's core allegation of ineffective assistance for failure to investigate competency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackman filed a post-conviction motion alleging he was under the influence of illegal substances and suffering from mental defects when he entered his…
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 Amendment Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Kenneth Jackman appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief. We reverse and remand.
In his post conviction motion, Defendant alleged that at the time he entered his plea, he was under the influence of illegal substances and suffering from mental defects, which impaired his ability to understand the consequences of his plea. He argued that counsel should have investigated his competency to proceed, as an evaluation would have revealed he was incompetent to stand trial, based on his history of mental illness and an evaluation that occurred several years after the plea. He also argued that counsel was ineffective in allowing him to plead when he was mentally incompetent, due to his psychiatric disorders and the influence of illegal drugs. As a result, he was deprived of a fair trial. However, he did not state in the motion that his defense counsel at the time of the plea was aware of his mental and drug abuse problems, nor did he attach documents corroborating his alleged condition.
The trial court denied the motion based on the state’s response. No portions of the record were attached to the response or to the order of denial. Essentially, the state took the position that the motion was legally insufficient in that Defendant failed to allege that he ever gave trial counsel a reason to believe that he was not competent to enter a plea. Patton v. State, 784 So.2d 380, 392 (Fla.2000); Nixon v. State, 932 So.2d 1009, 1020 (Fla.2006). Additionally, the state attempted to refute Defendant’s allegations by reference to portions of the record, which the trial court should have attached if they were necessary to refute Defendant’s allegations, Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d), and by referring to the perceptions of the assistant state attorney who filed the response below regarding conversations with Defendant around the time of the plea, which probably would have to be adduced during an evidentiary hearing.
In his brief filed with this court, Defendant argues that if his motion was insufficient, he should have been allowed to amend it with facts and records that would warrant relief, citing Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). In response to this court’s order to show cause, the state agrees that, as it was not apparent that the defects in the motion could not be corrected, Defendant should be given a reasonable time to amend his motion; furthermore, if the motion is denied on the merits, then the plea form and a transcript of the plea colloquy should be attached.
We agree and accordingly reverse, and direct the trial court on remand to permit Defendant a limited period of time in which to allege the same grounds in a *222facially sufficient motion, pursuant to Spera.
Reversed and Remanded.
FARMER, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackman v. State, 88 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…f under Rule 3.850. In that appeal, filed under case number 4D09-329, we reversed and directed the trial court on remand to permit Jackman a limited period of time in which to allege the same grounds in a legally sufficient motion. Jackman v. State, 27 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The mandate issued on February 26, 2010. In May 2009, while case number 4D09-329 was pending in this court, Jackman filed in the trial court a pro se “motion for leave to file a belated motion for postcon-viction relief,” in wh…
-
Jackman v. State, 174 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s -order summarily denying appellant’s amended post-conviction motion and various improper and untimely amendments and supplements that appellant filed. In Jackman v. State, 27 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), this Court reversed the [*1071] denial of appellant’s first rule 3.850 motion which was timely filed. We remanded with directions for appellant to be provided leave to file an amended motion correcting the pleading deficiencies…
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Patton v. State, 784 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2000)
- Nixon v. State, 932 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2006)