HENRY E. JACKSON, 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.
Jackson appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming he was incompetent to enter a plea and that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his competency. The appellate court affirms grounds one and two but reverses and remands on the competency claim, finding it facially sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
The court held that Jackson's claim is facially sufficient. The specific allegations of incompetency, mental illness history, failure to take medication, delusions, hearing voices, and notification to counsel meet the threshold for entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance claim related to competency.
[1] A claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a defendant's competency or request a competency determination is facially sufficient when the defendant a…
[2] A plea colloquy does not refute a claim of incompetence to enter a plea if the defendant's mental competency was never addressed during the colloquy.
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“A narrow argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the competency issue, however, is cognizable in the postconviction posture”
Establishes that competency-related ineffective assistance claims can be raised postconviction, though narrowly construed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson filed a postconviction motion alleging he was incompetent at the time of his plea. He alleged a history of mental illness, had not taken his s…
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 Delusions cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm grounds one and two of the appellant’s motion without further discussion. However, we hold that the appellant’s claim that he was incompetent to enter a plea and that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the appellant’s competency or request a competency determination1 is facially sufficient. Specifically, the appellant alleges that he was incompetent and did not understand the consequences 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 to raise a defendant’s alleged incompetency as a ground for asserting ineffective assistance of counsel); Luckey v. State, 979 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding that claim that counsel was ineffective for allowing defendant to proceed while incompetent was facially insufficient where defendant did not allege “he actually was incompetent to proceed to trial or insane at the time of his offense”). The plea colloquy attached by the trial court does not refute the appellant’s claim as the appellant’s mental competency was never addressed. We reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on this claim.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED and REMANDED in part for further proceedings.
DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., and BERGER, WENDY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…postconviction motion. Nelson v. State, 43 So. 3d 20, 33 (Fla.2010). Florida courts, however, continue to recognize a “narrow” claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise a defendant’s alleged incompetency, see Jackson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), but the legal standard that applies to such claims is unsettled. Procedural Pate Claims The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized that “the failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s…1 / 2
-
Jabari Markeith Hird v. State, 204 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…of counsel, he would have insisted on a trial instead of pleading nolo, contendere. See Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Ground one of Appellant’s amended motion set forth a facially sufficient claim. See Jackson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (concluding defendant’s claim was facially sufficient where the defendant “allege[d] that he was incompetent and did not understand the consequences of his plea, that he had a history of mental illness, had not taken his sc…
-
Phillips v. State, 229 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…oceedings, notwithstanding that he was taking medications. This claim is facially sufficient and the postconviction court’s cursory comments on this claim fail to refute it. See Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Jackson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Mr. Phillips’ third claim for relief is. that counsel failed to inform him of the elements that the State needed to establish a violation of probation. Seemingly, the post-conviction court read this claim to assert counsel’s fa…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Luckey v. State, 979 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Dixon v. State, 978 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Schultheis v. State, 12 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)