Richardson v. State, 98-316.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-316.,98-316. |
| Citation | 723 So.2d 910 |
| Parties | Zachary RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Zachary Richardson, Panama City, pro se, Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Charmaine Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant Zachary Richardson appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The denial must be reversed in part because the record attachments provided by the trial court did not conclusively refute the sworn allegations of appellant's motion.
Appellant pled guilty to one count of burglary of a structure. In a plea colloquy, appellant stated he had discussed every aspect of the case with his attorney, had been advised of possible defenses, was aware that by entering his plea he was foregoing any possible defenses, and was generally satisfied with his attorney's services. His sworn motion for post-conviction relief alleges that he was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs at the time of the burglary for which he was convicted. Appellant further states under oath that he informed the public defender's investigator of his intoxicated state at the time the crime was committed. Appellant then alleges that his appointed assistant public defender failed to inform him that the defense of intoxication was available to the charge of burglary. Appellant states that had he been advised of the existence of the defense, he would have elected to proceed to a jury trial.
Burglary is a specific intent crime for which voluntary intoxication is a defense. Whitty v. State, 687 So.2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). To be sure, appellant expressed satisfaction with his attorney's advice and representation. Nevertheless, in circumstances where the defendant alleges that counsel never advised him of the availability of a legal defense that he has only subsequently become aware of himself, "it would be illogical and unfair to foreclose analysis of that claim based upon what (defendant) asserts was an uninformed conclusion that counsel had been adequate in his criminal representation." Scott v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2048, ___ So.2d ___, 1998 WL 552678 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept.2, 1998). See also Stanley v. State, 703 So.2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Young v. State, 661 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Brunson v. State, 605 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...Gentry because the underlying offense in Thomas was burglary. Because burglary is a specific intent crime, see Richardson v. State, 723 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), then, under Gentry, attempted burglary would also be classified as a specific intent crime, and the Thomas court relied......
-
Wilson v. Crews
...present during voir dire and told the trial judge he was satisfied with the jury selection. (See id.). Relying onRichardson v. State, 723 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), Wilson argues he did not recognize the significance of Mr. Canto sitting on his jury until after this colloquy occur......
-
Odom v. State
...two witnesses who could have supported that defense. See Hester v. State, 732 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Richardson v. State, 723 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and BENTON and POLSTON, JJ., concur. PADOVANO, J., concurs with opinion. PADOVANO, J., con......
-
McBee v. State, 1D17-3383
...nothing in the record showed that the Appellant was aware of a forensic report supporting his defense. See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 723 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that plea colloquy in which defendant indicated he was happy with counsel and had been advised of all possible de......