Jones v. State, AM-351

Decision Date29 October 1982
Docket NumberNo. AM-351,AM-351
Citation421 So.2d 55
PartiesKeith Leroy JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Valerie E. Janard, Quincy, for appellant.

No Appearance for appellee.

ERVIN, Judge.

Keith Leroy Jones appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We reverse the lower court's order and remand the cause with directions that those pages of the record below which conclusively refute Jones' allegations relating to ineffective assistance of counsel be made part of the record on appeal, or, in the alternative, if the record does not so refute the allegations, that a full evidentiary hearing be accorded Jones on the issues raised in his motion to vacate.

Appellant has alleged that he was the victim of two automobile accidents resulting in severe brain injuries causing seizures that require him to take regular doses of medication; that he was subsequently charged in a case unrelated to that now on appeal with burglary and petit theft in 1979; that based on an examination by two doctors in March, 1980, a court of law found him to be incompetent to stand trial; that the same court ordered Jones to be re-examined in six months for a determination of competency, yet he was never re-examined nor adjudicated competent to stand trial. In September, 1980 appellant was arrested for dealing in stolen property. Upon his incarceration while awaiting arraignment, Jones became involved in a fight with a cellmate, resulting in his being charged with aggravated battery.

Jones obtained private counsel, and his mother immediately advised the attorney of information casting serious doubts as to Jones' competence. According to the allegations in the motion to vacate, counsel did not investigate this information, but instead effectuated a plea bargain whereby Jones pled guilty to the lesser offense of aggravated assault, in exchange for which the state nolle prossed the charge of dealing in stolen property. At arraignment, Jones' counsel advised the court that his client was mentally competent to enter the plea and was not "presently operating under the influence of drugs or intoxicants." The court, upon determining that appellant had voluntarily entered his plea, accepted the plea. During the later sentencing proceeding, Jones' counsel allegedly changed his position by tendering certain information to the court, to the effect that Jones had taken regular doses of medication, and had never fully recovered from the automobile accidents. Although counsel then made certain arguments in appellant's behalf relating to the accuracy of a post-sentence investigation report, he was accused of ignoring a reference in the report to the prior determination of Jones' incompetency.

After sentencing, Jones' new attorney filed a motion for post-conviction relief, styling the motion as one seeking relief based upon the theory that Jones had been furnished ineffective assistance of counsel. The lower court summarily denied Jones' motion without either an explanation or an attachment of portions of the trial record refuting Jones' allegations. In so doing, the lower court has hampered our ability to review this case and departed from the spirit of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, noted in the accompanying "Committee Note" authored by the rule's drafters. Van Bever v. State, 405 So.2d 474, 475 n. 2 (Fla.5th DCA 1981).

Because no portion of the record was attached to its order of denial, the trial court impliedly found the motion legally insufficient on its face, for when the motion is facially sufficient, the trial court must either attach that portion of the case file or record which conclusively shows that the prisoner is not entitled to relief, or must grant an evidentiary hearing.

Id. at 474-475 (footnote omitted); see also Brown v. State, 409 So.2d 129, 130 n. 2 (Fla.5th DCA 1982). If, however, the motion is facially insufficient, the failure to attach portions of the record refuting Jones' allegations may be excused as harmless error. See, e.g., Cowick v. State, 419 So.2d 779 (Fla.1st DCA 1982); cf. Goode v. State, 403 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla.1981).

Thus, the determinative issue at bar is whether the motion is facially sufficient. Despite its not being specifically styled as such, the motion charges also that Jones involuntarily pled guilty due to mental incompetence. The issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary plea of guilt are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Hogan v. Adkinson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • December 19, 2018
    ...of an involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel are properly asserted in a Rule 3.850 motion. See Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (citing LeDuc v. State, 415 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1982)); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(a)(5). Petitioner has not filed a ......
  • Blehm v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1991
    ...on the elements of aggravated robbery during the 1978 Boulder County providency hearing.7 The court of appeals cited Jones v. State, 421 So.2d 55 (Fla.App.1982) and Horace v. Wainwright, 781 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 869, 107 S.Ct. 235, 93 L.Ed.2d 160 (1986), for the pro......
  • People v. Blehm, 86CA0452
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • November 24, 1989
    ...insane, Horace v. Wainwright, 781 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir.1986); Eason v. State, 421 So.2d 35 (Fla.App.1982), or incompetent, Jones v. State, 421 So.2d 55 (Fla.App.1982). Ignorance or good faith of the court and prosecuting officers does not serve to validate a proceeding conducted in violation......
  • Walker v. State, 2D00-3103.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 2, 2001
    ...to provide a basis to challenge the voluntariness of his plea. See McAroy v. State, 597 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Jones v. State, 421 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order denying relief as to Walker's mental incompetence claim. On remand, the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT