Daniels v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daniels v. State

923 So. 2d 554, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3564, 2006 WL 625144

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2006

DocketNo. 4D05-3798

StatusPublished

This text of 923 So. 2d 554 (Daniels v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniels v. State, 923 So. 2d 554, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3564, 2006 WL 625144 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Daniels appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of three of his four grounds without further discussion. We reverse, however, as to the third ground, wherein he claimed defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him he could assert the insanity defense at trial and alleged, had he known he could assert such defense, he would not have entered his no [555]*555contest plea. See Spencer v. State, 889 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing summary denial of postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for misinforming defendant that there was no available defense when, in fact, insanity defense was available, and for failing to have him tested to determine his competency at the time of the crimes). We remand for either an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting this ground for relief.

Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; and Remanded.

STEVENSON, C.J., GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Daniels appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of three of his four grounds without further discussion. We reverse, however, as to the third ground, wherein he claimed defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him he could assert the insanity defense at trial and alleged, had he known he could assert such defense, he would not have entered his no [555]*555contest plea. See Spencer v. State, 889 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing summary denial of postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for misinforming defendant that there was no available defense when, in fact, insanity defense was available, and for failing to have him tested to determine his competency at the time of the crimes). We remand for either an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting this ground for relief.

Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; and Remanded.

STEVENSON, C.J., GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

923 So. 2d 554, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3564, 2006 WL 625144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack