Kelly v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kelly v. State

134 So. 3d 1041, 2013 WL 335962, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-941

StatusPublished

This text of 134 So. 3d 1041 (Kelly 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

Kelly v. State, 134 So. 3d 1041, 2013 WL 335962, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1381 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which was addressed to an aggravated battery conviction and in which the appellant presented several claims, including a contention that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and seek an evaluation regarding the appellant’s competence to stand trial. As alleged in the motion, and indicated in other documents in the record, the appellant was placed in a psychiatric ward upon his arrest, and continued to be held there while awaiting his aggravated battery trial. It was also alleged, and the record further confirms, that the appellant was declared incompetent to stand trial in another proceeding where he was represented by other counsel, just months after the aggravated battery proceeding.

The claim regarding counsel’s failure to investigate the appellant’s competency in the aggravated battery case is facially sufficient, and is not negated by the record attachments, and therefore should not have been summarily denied. See Williams v. State, 46 So.3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Jackson v. State, 29 So.3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); see also Houle v. State, 74 So.3d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

The appealed order is reversed as to the denial of this ineffective assistance claim. The order is affirmed as to the denial of the other claims, and the case is remanded.

DAVIS, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which was addressed to an aggravated battery conviction and in which the appellant presented several claims, including a contention that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and seek an evaluation regarding the appellant’s competence to stand trial. As alleged in the motion, and indicated in other documents in the record, the appellant was placed in a psychiatric ward upon his arrest, and continued to be held there while awaiting his aggravated battery trial. It was also alleged, and the record further confirms, that the appellant was declared incompetent to stand trial in another proceeding where he was represented by other counsel, just months after the aggravated battery proceeding.

The claim regarding counsel’s failure to investigate the appellant’s competency in the aggravated battery case is facially sufficient, and is not negated by the record attachments, and therefore should not have been summarily denied. See Williams v. State, 46 So.3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Jackson v. State, 29 So.3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); see also Houle v. State, 74 So.3d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

The appealed order is reversed as to the denial of this ineffective assistance claim. The order is affirmed as to the denial of the other claims, and the case is remanded.

DAVIS, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 So. 3d 1041, 2013 WL 335962, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack