MARRIO D. WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Trial counsel's failure to obtain a competency evaluation may constitute ineffective assistance, but a defendant must allege specific facts showing a reasonably competent attorney would have questioned competency and must set forth clear and convincing circumstances creating a real, substantial, and legitimate doubt as to competency; conclusory allegations of incompetence are insufficient.
[1] A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to obtain a competency evaluation must allege specific facts showing a reasonably competent attorney wo…
[2] Intellectual disability or low intelligence alone does not establish incompetency to stand trial under the Dusky standard, which requires inability to consult with counse…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To illustrate deficient performance, Appellant must allege 'specific facts showing that a reasonably competent attorney would have questioned [his] competence to proceed.' Conclusory allegations do not demonstrate counsel was deficient in handling a competency issue, and they do not compel an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the standard for alleging deficient performance in competency-related ineffective assistance claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of first-degree murder of a police informant and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two doctors opined he was intellectually disa…
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 Intellectual Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
MARRIO D. WILLIAMS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D20-817
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 18, 2020
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.
Rachel E. Reese, of O’Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A., of Tampa, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
TRAVER, J.
We affirm the summary denial of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, on Grounds One, Five, Six, Ten, and
1 Appellant has abandoned Grounds Two through Four, Seven through Nine, and Twelve by failing to raise them in his initial brief. See Ward v. State, 19 So. 3d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
3 whether the defendant has a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the pending proceedings”); see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960). The postconviction court also attached a two-page excerpt of the trial transcript, in which it conducted a colloquy with Appellant. In this colloquy, the trial court asked Appellant if he “had ever been found to be insane, incompetent, mentally challenged, [or] had your rights taken away and not restored to you.” When Appellant asked the trial court to rephrase the question, it asked “[h]ave you ever been found to be crazy?” Appellant said no. This isolated and brief discussion is insufficient to refute Appellant’s allegations. See Turem v. State, 220 So. 3d 504, 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Accordingly, the record provided by the trial court does not refute Appellant’s allegations. We do not find, however, that Appellant has met his high burden to allege deficient performance and resulting prejudice for this type of claim. See generally Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). To illustrate deficient performance, Appellant must allege “specific facts showing that a reasonably competent attorney would have questioned [his] competence to proceed.” Id. Conclusory allegations do not demonstrate counsel was deficient in handling a competency issue, and they do not compel an evidentiary hearing. Id. Indeed, not every instance of low intelligence or mental deficiency equates to incompetence to stand trial. Id. (citing Medina v. Singletary, 59 F. 3d 1095, 1107 (11th Cir. 1995)). To allege prejudice adequately, Appellant must “set forth clear and convincing circumstances that create a real, substantial and legitimate doubt as to [his] competency.” Id. at 320. Before granting an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court may consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether Appellant has met this burden. Id.
WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaitlin Marie Zimmershead v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Ward v. State, 19 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- United States v. Thermon Phillips, 59 F.3d 1095 (11th Cir. 1995)
- Alton Eugene James v. State, 717 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Turem v. State, 220 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)