MARKUS FORSTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant stated facially sufficient claims for postconviction relief that were not refuted by the record.
The defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging his plea was involuntary due to incompetence and ineffecti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competency To Enter Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Markus Forster appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because Forster has stated facially sufficient claims which are not refuted by the record, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the claims on their merits.
Forster claimed that his plea to several charges was involuntary because he was incompetent at the túne he entered his plea. He also claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue with the trial court. Forster stated that he had been prescribed Mellar-il and Lithium for a bi-polar disorder at the time of his plea and that he was not administered his medication while being held in pretrial detention. According to Forster, this lack of medication negatively affected his judgment and comprehension. This claim must be addressed on its merits by the trial court. See Irving v. State, 741 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Forster further alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to explore the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, despite being provided with Forster’s extensive psychiatric history. Forster contended that his psychiatric problems robbed him of the intent necessary to be convicted of the crimes for which he was charged. This is a facially sufficient claim. See Easley v. State, 742 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). If the trial court again summarily denies Forster’s motion, it must attach those portions of the record which refute the claim. See Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benny Watts v. State, 136 So. 3d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…(Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McAroy v. State, 597 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Spencer v. State, 889 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Stinyard v. State, 870 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Munoz v. State, 819 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Forster v. State, 779 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The lower court did not attach portions of the record showing that an insanity defense would not have been viable for appellant. If it was a viable defense, and defense counsel believed it was more advantageous for appellant to…
-
Cleo Stinyard, Jr. v. State, 870 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…was aware of Stinyard’s history of mental illness and the facts surrounding the offense, but counsel never investigated an insanity defense or informed him that such a defense was an option. This is a facially sufficient claim. See Forster v. State, 779 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Easley v. State, 742 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The circuit court did not specifically address this claim when denying Stinyard’s motion, nor did the court provide any record attachments to refute it. In fact, the transcript…
-
Storey v. State, 32 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…o as to warrant a summary denial of his motion, we reverse and remand to the postconviction court for an evidentiary hearing on Storey’s claim that his violation of probation admission was involuntary due to his mental illness. See Forster v. State, 779 So. 2d 550, 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finding a hearing on the merits was required where petitioner claimed his plea was involuntary because he was not administered medication for bipolar disorder); Irving v. State, 741 So. 2d 519, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (noting…
Authorities Cited
- Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Easley v. State, 742 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Marlin Doren Irving v. State, 741 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)