BENNY WATTS, 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 affirmed the lower court's denial of most of Benny Watts' post-conviction claims but reversed and remanded regarding his claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him that insanity was available as a complete defense before advising him to enter a guilty plea.
The court held that Watts' allegations of ineffective assistance based on his attorney's failure to discuss the insanity defense should be addressed in an evidentiary hearing because nothing in the record refutes his claim that he was never informed of this defense and would have gone to trial if he had been told.
[1] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to inform the defendant of an available insanity defense must be addressed in an evide…
[2] A trial court's denial of a post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is improper without an evidentiary hearing when the defendant alleges counsel faile…
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“Such allegations should be addressed in an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing in the record to refute them.”
Establishes the standard that post-conviction claims of ineffective assistance require an evidentiary hearing when not refuted by the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatts committed crimes on September 1, 2006. In January 2007, his attorney moved the court to determine his competency at the time of the crime. An ex…
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 Plea Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the lower court’s denial of all of appellant’s post-conviction issues except his claim that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by advising him to enter a plea without informing him that insanity was available as a complete defense to the crimes with which he was charged. The crimes in this case were committed on September 1, 2006, and appellant alleged that his attorney moved the court on January 29, 2007, to determine his competency at the time of the crime; an expert determined on March 19, 2007, that he was incompetent to stand trial; and he was hospitalized for schizophrenia on May 1, 2007, before being restored to competency on November 8, 2007. Appellant informed the court at the plea hearing that he was taking an anti-psychotic drug because he heard voices, whereupon the trial court questioned him and determined that the medication was not impairing appellant’s understanding of the proceedings. Appellant contends that he was legally insane at the time of the crimes; and thus insanity would have been a valid defense, but his attorney never discussed it with him.
Such allegations should be addressed in an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing in the record to refute them. See, e.g., Childers v. State, 782 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McAroy v. State, 597 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Spencer v. State, 889 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Stinyard v. State, 870 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Munoz v. State, 819 So.2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Forster v. State, 779 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
The lower court did not attach portions of the record showing that an insanity defense would not have been viable for appellant. If it was a viable defense, and defense counsel believed it was more advantageous for appellant to enter into the plea agreement than go to trial, this would require explication in an evidentiary hearing because it was not mentioned during the plea colloquy. Although the lower court determined that appellant risked a long prison sentence if he were to be tried and convicted, and that the evidence against appellant was strong, these facts do not sufficiently refute appellant’s claim that he was never informed of the insanity defense and he would have gone to trial had he been told.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
PADOVANO, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacobson v. State, 171 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…hat he was insane at the time of the offenses. Appellant further alleged he would not have entered his plea had counsel properly advised him that he had the right to assert the insanity defense as a complete defense. Appellant cites Waits v. State, 136 So. 3d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), which held that a sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for advising a defendant to enter a plea without informing him that an insanity defense was available should be addressed in an evidentiary hearing if…
-
FRY v. State, 217 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…r held an evidentia-ry hearing. State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235, 237 (Fla. 1996) (“Rule 3.850 explicitly requires that the record ‘conclusively’ rebut an otherwise cognizable claim if it is to be denied without a hearing.”); see also Watts v. State, 136 So. 3d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (concluding that attached records failed to conclusively refute appellant’s claim); Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1988) (attaching sufficient records to show that appellant knew when he entered his plea that his attorney h…
-
King v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…nd that the record excerpts attached to the trial court’s denial of the 3.850 motion are insufficient to establish conclusively that Appellant is not entitled to relief. We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. See Watts v. State, 136 So. 3d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing for evidentiary hearing on postconviction claim that counsel had not advised defendant about an insanity defense, where plea colloquy did not indicate that the defense had been evaluated). REVERSED and REMANDED f…
Authorities Cited
- Spencer v. State, 889 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Dutertre v. State, 889 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Deric L. McAROY v. State, 597 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Markus Forster v. State, 779 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Cleo Stinyard, Jr. v. State, 870 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Munoz v. State, 819 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)