Case Name: Johnny Bo PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-02-20
Citations: 487 So. 2d 34
Docket Number: No. BH-155
Parties: Johnny Bo PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: THOMPSON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 487
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
Johnny Bo PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. BH-155.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 20, 1986.
On Motion for Rehearing April 16, 1986.
Johnny Bo Price, pro se.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
ZEHMER, Judge.
Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, appellant complained that his court-appointed attorney failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation of the defense of insanity by reason of intoxication based on appellant's contention that he had a history of alcoholism and was intoxicated at the time of the offenses. The trial court summarily denied the motion.
Appellant was charged with armed robbery and kidnapping. The record shows that he consumed approximately one-half quart of whiskey and smoked marijuana shortly before the offenses occurred and that alcohol consumption continued during the criminal episode. We note that this constitutes an even greater use of intoxicants than was present in Gardner v. State, 480 So.2d 91 (Fla.1985). In Gardner the Supreme Court held that a defendant charged with specific intent crimes is entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary in toxication when there is evidence of the use of intoxicants and the defendant is intoxicated at the time of the offense.
Appellant has alleged that he informed his counsel about his long history of chronic alcoholism which resulted in his hospitalization and treatment for alcoholism and alcohol-induced schizophrenia. Nonetheless, the only defense which counsel chose to raise was mistaken identity, hardly a meaningful choice, given the testimony of the victim and a codefendant.
We conclude that the motion is sufficient on its face to warrant an evidentiary hearing under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and we remand this case to the trial court pursuant to rule 3.850(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.