Hayes v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D10–2362.,2D10–2362. |
| Citation | 56 So.3d 72 |
| Parties | Damion HAYES, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William R. Ponall of Kirkconnell, Lindsey, Snure, Yates & Ponall, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.PER CURIAM.
Damion Hayes appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without comment the denial of four of his claims, but we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on Hayes' claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for abandoning the defense of insanity.
In 2005, a jury convicted Hayes of attempted first-degree murder with a deadly weapon and armed trespass on property. He was sentenced to life in prison. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Hayes v. State, 976 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (table decision). In 2009, Hayes filed his timely rule 3.850 motion.
In ground one of his motion, Hayes alleged that his counsel was ineffective for abandoning the defense of insanity when counsel was aware that Hayes had a significant history of mental illness and when counsel had originally intended to assert the insanity defense at trial. Hayes acknowledged that counsel was honoring Hayes' own decision to abandon the defense, but Hayes argued that counsel was unreasonable in doing so.
The postconviction court summarily denied this claim, concluding that it was refuted by the record indicating that it was Hayes' decision to abandon the defense of insanity. The transcript of the trial indicates that when the trial court questioned Hayes regarding his decision to not testify, the State asked the trial court to address on the record strategic decisions made by Hayes and his counsel. Trial counsel stated that at an earlier court proceeding a week before trial, Hayes chose to forego the insanity defense and to instead plead not guilty. The trial court then addressed Hayes personally, and Hayes confirmed that there was nothing that trial counsel had failed to do that Hayes wished him to do and that Hayes was satisfied with counsel's services.
We disagree that Hayes' claim of ineffectiveness is refuted by the record. The record confirms that counsel stated that he was honoring Hayes' decision to abandon the insanity defense, but the record does not demonstrate that counsel had thoroughly discussed the decision to abandon the defense with Hayes before honoring Hayes' choice. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...court summarily denied the Rule 3.850 motion.On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed. See Hayes v. State , 56 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (per curiam). Although the record suggested that counsel was following Mr. Hayes’ wishes in abandoning the insanity defense, there was n......
-
Sanchez v. Jones
...decision to abandon the insanity defense at the direction of his client was reasonable under the circumstances of this case." 56 So. 3d 72, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Additionally, although not controlling, the Court finds the following authority persuasive:We begin our analysis with the questi......
-
Gage v. State
...that the defendant's trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred.’ ” Ibarra, 56 So.3d at 72 (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995) ); see also Moorer v. State, 133 So.3d 1242, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Lynch v. State,......
- Ibarra v. State , 2D08–3955.
-
Post-conviction relief
...unreasonable, even though defendant agreed at the time, and defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Hayes v. State, 56 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) When defendant alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach a witness, and the court dismisses the claim a......