Opinion ID: 1840836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to File Motion to Withdraw Plea

Text: Barnhill first alleges trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea that was entered, over counsel's objections, at the start of the guilt phase of his trial. Barnhill asserts counsel's query regarding his competency to proceed after the entry of plea coupled with the court-ordered competency evaluations should have led to a formal motion to withdraw the plea. Conversely, the State argues Barnhill failed to allege that he wished to withdraw his plea or that counsel prevented him from withdrawing his plea. Additionally, the State argues Barnhill failed to allege that the plea was not voluntary or that he was incompetent at the time. Barnhill pled guilty over counsel's objection at the start of the guilt phase on October 14, 1998, and the trial court conducted a full plea colloquy addressing the voluntariness of the plea. The next day trial counsel, Arthur Haft, advised the court that he noticed a drastic change in Barnhill's behavior and questioned Barnhill's competency to proceed when Barnhill told them he wanted the death penalty. Haft informed the court Barnhill wore a suit to court every day except this day and he noticed the change before the plea was entered which may have resulted in the plea being an emotional decision. The trial court inquired of Barnhill on his choice to plead and request for the death penalty. Barnhill indicated he was able to understand the proceeding, he was sound of mind and able to act in his own interest. Second chair trial counsel, Timothy Caudill, requested that the doctors evaluate Barnhill to determine if he was competent at the time he entered the plea. The trial court inquired of counsel if he felt Barnhill was competent at the time of plea to which Caudill responded, Yes sir, I did. The request was denied. The guilt-phase jury was released and the trial court ordered two experts to examine Barnhill. Dr. Danziger, one of the court-ordered experts, submitted a report that competency was no longer an issue and the court declared Barnhill competent. Subsequently, a jury was selected for a penalty phase. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim involving a guilty plea is determined by the same deficient performance prong as Strickland while the second prong involves the defendant demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Grosvenor v. State, 874 So.2d 1176, 1179 (Fla.2004) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985)). This Court has found strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected and counsel's decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct. See Robinson v. State, 913 So.2d 514, 524 (Fla.2005); Brown v. State, 894 So.2d 137, 147 (Fla.2004). The record reflects counsel was not deficient by failing to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Both trial attorneys testified at the evidentiary hearing on this issue. When counsel noticed Barnhill's changed mental state, they immediately advised the court and medical assistance was provided. Haft testified on direct and cross-examination that Barnhill never indicated to him that he wanted to withdraw the plea. Haft testified that Caudill's notes reflect that Caudill may have spoken to Barnhill about withdrawing the plea. However, Haft could not remember Barnhill wanting to withdraw his plea. Haft testified that there were discussions regarding withdrawing the plea and whether or not withdrawal would be viewed as jerking the court around. Haft said the decision was made not to withdraw the plea but to use it as a mitigating factor. Caudill testified that after viewing his notes it was apparent that Barnhill initially wanted to withdraw the plea. However, when he spoke with Barnhill about the ramifications of doing so, Barnhill indicated he understood it was not the best thing for him to do. Caudill also testified on cross-examination that he did not recall any further discussion on the issue after the meeting where the decision was made not to withdraw the plea. Both attorneys testified that after consultation with the defendant, a strategic decision was made not to withdraw the plea. In addition, Dr. Fisher and Dr. Danziger testified at the evidentiary hearing regarding Barnhill's mental state at the time of and after the plea. Dr. Fisher testified that Barnhill suffered a brief reactive psychosis as a response to specific stressors. Specifically, Dr. Fisher testified and agreed with Dr. Danziger's report that Barnhill's reaction was due to the impact of the guilty plea in this case. Dr. Fisher also testified that Barnhill suffered from prior depression brought on by the events in his life prior to his arrest. Dr. Danziger testified that he saw Barnhill for the first time three days after entry of the plea. He testified Barnhill was alert, fully oriented, and his mood was good; he diagnosed him with a brief reactive psychosis which was being resolved. Dr. Danziger also said that at the time of the plea, Barnhill was not suffering from a psychotic disorder but the psychotic disorder developed after the plea. The trial court found that no formal finding of incompetency was made and that ultimately Barnhill had been found to suffer from a brief reactive psychosis, a temporary psychotic episode triggered by extreme stress. Based on the experts' testimony and that of counsel, the trial court further found that Barnhill was acting normal on the day of the plea and there was no reasonable belief that he was incompetent at the time that he entered the plea. Barnhill has failed to show any deficient performance on counsel's part. Barnhill discussed the issue with his attorney, and a reasonable strategic decision was made to forego withdrawing the plea. There is competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding that counsel was not deficient. Because deficient performance has not been demonstrated, we need not examine the prejudice prong of Strickland. Ineffective assistance of counsel has not been demonstrated, and the trial court properly denied relief on this issue.