Jabari M. Hird v. State
204 So. 3d 483
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jabari Hird appealed the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion challenging counsel’s assistance in connection with a nolo contendere plea.
- Hird’s amended motion raised four grounds; he claimed counsel allowed him to plead while he was under the influence of antipsychotic medication and thus substantively incompetent.
- Hird alleged he told defense counsel and provided medical records showing medication effects; he also alleged hallucinations, hearing voices, and needing assistance to stand at the plea hearing.
- Hird’s brother submitted an affidavit stating he had spoken with defense counsel about Hird’s mental health and medication use.
- The postconviction court summarily denied all four grounds; the Fifth District affirmed denial of grounds two through four but reversed denial of ground one and remanded for records or an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether counsel was ineffective for allowing plea while Hird was medicated/competency impaired | Hird: counsel permitted plea despite Hird being under antipsychotic medication, hallucinating, and unable to understand proceedings; would have insisted on trial | State: summary denial (asserted record refutes claim) | Reversed summary denial; record does not conclusively refute; remand for attachments or evidentiary hearing |
| 2. Sufficiency of ground two (ineffective assistance) | Hird: alleged additional ineffective assistance (details in motion) | State: record conclusively refutes or claim is legally insufficient | Affirmed summary denial |
| 3. Sufficiency of ground three (ineffective assistance) | Hird: alleged additional ineffective assistance (details in motion) | State: record conclusively refutes or claim is legally insufficient | Affirmed summary denial |
| 4. Sufficiency of ground four (ineffective assistance) | Hird: alleged additional ineffective assistance (details in motion) | State: record conclusively refutes or claim is legally insufficient | Affirmed summary denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Lebron v. State, 100 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (standard of review for summary denial of rule 3.850 motion)
- McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002) (de novo review principles cited)
- Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1999) (claims must be facially invalid or conclusively refuted to uphold summary denial)
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000) (entitlement to evidentiary hearing unless record conclusively shows no relief)
- Lightbourne v. Dugger, 549 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1989) (accept defendant’s factual allegations not refuted by the record)
- Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (ineffective assistance claims where counsel permits plea despite incompetency)
- Jackson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (facially sufficient claim where defendant alleged incompetence, mental illness, and active symptoms at plea)
- Saunders v. State, 148 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (reversed summary denial where plea transcript and medication evidence were absent)
- Burgos v. State, 181 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (remand for records or evidentiary hearing when record does not conclusively refute claim)