XAVIER A. JOHNSON
v.
STATE
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.
A post-conviction court may not summarily deny a facially sufficient Rule 3.850 motion asserting incompetency at the time of plea based on court records from later cases that do not conclusively refute the incompetency claim.
[1] A post-conviction court must afford an evidentiary hearing or provide conclusive records when a defendant files a facially sufficient motion asserting incompetency at the…
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 intelligenceJohnson filed a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 asserting he was incompetent to proceed when he entered a plea i…
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 Restoration Of Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
XAVIER ARSENIO JOHNSON,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-1854
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 7, 2018
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Dan Traver, Judge.
Robert Wesley, Public Defender and Robert Thompson Adams, IV, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent- Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary denial of Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant filed a facially sufficient motion asserting that he was incompetent to proceed when he entered a plea in 2012. The post-conviction court summarily denied the motion based upon court minutes from separate cases from
2 2016, determining that Appellant’s competency had been restored. These records do not conclusively refute Appellant’s contention that he was incompetent in 2012. Accordingly, we remand with instructions that the lower court either grant the relief, afford to Appellant an evidentiary hearing on his claim, or attach different records that conclusively refute the claim.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.