DEMARCO v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DEMARCO v. State

31 So. 3d 975, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5040, 2010 WL 1507828

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 16, 2010

Docket2D09-4131

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 31 So. 3d 975 (DEMARCO 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

DEMARCO v. State, 31 So. 3d 975, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5040, 2010 WL 1507828 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Heath A. Demarco seeks review of a final order denying his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Demarco raises one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to raise the issue of Demarco’s competency to participate in the legal proceedings. The post-conviction court construed Demarco’s claim as one raising trial court error in failing to make a determination of incompetency and found the claim procedurally barred. See Whitfield v. State, 923 So.2d 375, 379 (Fla.2005); Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235, 1248 (Fla.2003). However, De- *976 marco’s claim appears on its face to be an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the narrow argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a defendant’s competency is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. See Carroll v. Slate, 815 So.2d 601, 610 (Fla.2002); Schultheis v. State, 12 So.3d 811, 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Demar-co’s motion and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Heath A. Demarco seeks review of a final order denying his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Demarco raises one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to raise the issue of Demarco’s competency to participate in the legal proceedings. The post-conviction court construed Demarco’s claim as one raising trial court error in failing to make a determination of incompetency and found the claim procedurally barred. See Whitfield v. State, 923 So.2d 375, 379 (Fla.2005); Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235, 1248 (Fla.2003). However, De- *976 marco’s claim appears on its face to be an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the narrow argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a defendant’s competency is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. See Carroll v. Slate, 815 So.2d 601, 610 (Fla.2002); Schultheis v. State, 12 So.3d 811, 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Demar-co’s motion and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 3d 975, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5040, 2010 WL 1507828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demarco-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack