Carter v. State, 91-278
| Decision Date | 24 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-278,91-278 |
| Citation | 590 So.2d 1096 |
| Parties | Charles Edward CARTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. 590 So.2d 1096, 17 Fla. L. Week. D115 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ivy Ginsberg Shanock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before FERGUSON, JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.
Carter appeals the trial court's order denying his rule 3.850 motion to vacate a judgment of convictions and sentences without a hearing. On the facts presented, an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted.
After we affirmed the convictions and sentences, Carter v. State, 550 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989), the appellant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentences on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged that his counsel was ineffective in failing to present an insanity defense and in failing to file a motion to discharge based on the speedy trial rule.
Carter contended that his attorney failed to provide three court-appointed psychologists with information the doctors needed to determine whether Carter was sane at the time he committed the offenses. Specifically, Carter alleged that the doctors were never provided with medical records detailing his hospitalization on three previous occasions for a variety of mental disorders which would have supported an insanity defense. Reports of the three psychologists were filed in support of the motion for post-conviction relief. Two of the doctors indicated that more information regarding Carter's mental health history would have enabled them to make a more accurate decision as to whether Carter was insane at the time of the offenses.
A movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief unless the motion and the record conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to the relief sought. Harich v. State, 484 So.2d 1239 (Fla.1986). When a defendant alleges sufficient facts to establish ineffective assistance of counsel due to an attorney's failure to raise an insanity defense, an evidentiary hearing is required. See Boutwell v. State, 563 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Myers v. State, 539 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Orr v. State, 467 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In response to Carter's motion, the State argues that an evidentiary hearing was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...850 (1993)); Florida (see State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984); Carter v. State, 550 So.2d 1130 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, 590 So.2d 1096 (1991)); 2 Indiana (see Minniefield v. State, 539 N.E.2d 464, 466 (Ind.1989) (implying that remedy is to strike entire jury by holding that trial......
-
Kessell v. State, 4D11–2931.
...the plea that there was some support for an insanity defense, but at least two experts would have disagreed. Unlike in Carter v. State, 590 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), Kessell has no basis to question the findings of the two experts who concluded he was sane or any reason to believe they......