Opinion ID: 1878821
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Need for an Evidentiary Hearing

Text: Patton argues four reasons in support of his claim that the trial court erred in summarily denying his postconviction motion: (1) the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were legally sufficient and not conclusively rebutted by the record; (2) the court considered evidence from the file that was not in the record to summarily deny the motion; (3) it was improper for the judge to delegate authority to the State to draft the order denying the motion for postconviction relief; and (4) it was improper for the judge to fail to attach specific portions of the record to the order denying relief. A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief; or (2) the motion or particular claims are legally insufficient. See Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996); Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1993); Holland v. State, 503 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1987). The defendant in a postconviction proceeding bears the burden, however, of establishing a prima facie case based upon a legally valid claim. Mere conclusory allegations are not sufficient. See Kennedy v. State, 547 So.2d 912 (Fla.1989). Because the record does not conclusively refute some of Patton's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court should have held an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, the court should have held a hearing to determine if counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present evidence that Patton was intoxicated or insane at the time of the shooting. Instead, the court summarily denied this claim stating a strategy must be presumed. If this were the standard, a strategy could be presumed in every case and an evidentiary hearing would never be required on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. To the contrary, it was necessary for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel was acting competently when she chose not to present an intoxication or insanity defense to a charge of first-degree premeditated murder, where she had conceded that the defendant shot the victim. These defenses have the potential to affect the outcome of the trial since voluntary intoxication or insanity can negate the specific intent needed for first-degree murder. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). With regard to the intoxication defense, counsel had information that the defendant was a heavy drug user and had a substantial history of drug and alcohol abuse dating back to when he was seven years old. Counsel knew of but did not present evidence that Patton had been doing speedballs (a mixture of cocaine and heroin) only seven hours prior to the shooting, that the stolen car Patton had driven prior to the murder had drug paraphernalia in it, or that Patton had fresh track marks on his arm at the time he was arrested. Because this evidence was available but not presented to the jury, the issue of intoxication needs to be explored in the adversarial setting of an evidentiary hearing. With regard to the insanity defense, there was also ample evidence available which could have suggested to defense counsel that Patton was legally insane at the time he committed this murder, including the fact that Patton had previously been adjudicated insane. The State argues that counsel was unable to find an expert who would testify that Patton was legally insane, and therefore she was not ineffective for failing to present this defense. This argument is rebutted by the record. Dr. Toomer testified at resentencing that Patton was legally insane at the time he shot the police officer. In addition there are records available that document Patton's history of mental illness. A proven claim of insanity at the time of the offense would negate the specific intent needed for a first-degree murder conviction. At the very least this claim should be tested at an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, one of the bases for the State's argument that counsel could not find an expert to testify that Patton was legally insane was the fact that four court-appointed experts testified Patton was competent to stand trial. This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is not necessarily relevant on the question of whether the defendant was insane at the time of the killing. Competency to stand trial and insanity at the time of the offense involve the defendant's mental state at separate and distinct points in time. Second, the competency experts may not have been given the type of background information that would be necessary to evaluate Patton's true mental status at the time of the murder. Patton had a substantial history of mental health problems beginning in his early childhood. Only two of the court-appointed experts who testified Patton was competent to stand trial reviewed any of Patton's hospital records from an early commitment. One of those experts was the most hesitant to find Patton competent to stand trial. He further stated he would need more information to make an informed decision. This claim warrants an evidentiary hearing. Patton's other claims of entitlement to an evidentiary hearing are without merit. His argument that the court erred in considering the court files in addition to the record is erroneous and contrary to the plain language of rule 3.850. Rule 3.850 states that the court should consider the records and files in the case. This language must be given its common meaning. No evidentiary hearing is needed on this claim. We also disagree with Patton's allegations that the court erred by failing to properly attach specific portions of the record to the order and by allowing the State to draft the order. The order gives very specific reasons as to why each claim was denied. The court does not have to attach specific portions of the record to the order summarily denying postconviction relief where the reasons for denial are clearly spelled out in the order. See Demps v. Dugger, 714 So.2d 365 (Fla.1998); Mills v. State, 684 So.2d 801 (Fla.1996); Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993). Patton also objects to the fact that the State drafted the order and to the wording of the order. The record shows the court reviewed six boxes of records and files, the defendant's motion, and the State's response before concluding the State's responsive arguments were correct. At a telephone hearing with both parties, the court denied the motion for the reasons contained in the State's response. This statement amounted to the trial court's oral findings. The court then asked the State to reduce the findings to writing by drafting an order denying the motion for the reasons contained in the State's response. Patton claims the order should have been one sentence stating the court denied the motion based upon the State's arguments contained in its response, rather than a well-drafted order specifically detailing the portions of the record that proved the claims were legally insufficient or conclusively rebutted. To the contrary, such a conclusory order would have been insufficient. Patton's reliance on Smothers v. State, 555 So.2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), for the proposition that the court cannot rely on portions of the record supplied by the state attorney is not well taken because the record in that case was not given to the trial court for review at the time the response was filed; rather, the record was offered to the appellate court. Here, the record was provided to the trial court and the record reflects the court carefully reviewed the boxes of documents. The court chose to adopt the State's arguments as an accurate and well-documented reflection of the facts and law pertaining to the issues. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)(stating even when the trial court adopts proposed findings verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous). We also do not find merit in Patton's argument that this issue should be guided by Patterson v. State, 513 So.2d 1257 (Fla.1987), and its progeny. In Patterson, we held the State should not draft the trial court's sentencing order. This statement was based on the fact that a sentencing order is a statutorily required personal evaluation by the trial judge of aggravating and mitigating factors. The evaluation done in the sentencing order is the basis for a sentence of life or death. The sentencing order must be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to perform its proportionality review, the review which may ultimately determine whether a person lives or dies. On the other hand, a motion for postconviction relief is brought after the judgment and sentence have been affirmed and are presumed correct. [5] The order on postconviction is not a sentencing order; it is a recitation of the facts, law, and reasons for the granting or denial of requested relief. Accordingly, we find this claim is also without merit.