KING v. STATE (2020)

Appellant's postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleges that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder from his service in the U.S. Marine Corps, including two deployments. He alleges that a road-rage incident triggered his disorders and caused him to engage in the conduct for which he was arrested, and that his disorders would have constituted a viable defense at trial, but that his trial counsel failed to inform him that insanity was available as a defense. The plea colloquy does not indicate that any such defense was evaluated. The State argues narrowly that these disorders are not “insanity” per se, and that Appellant's negotiated plea of 17 years in prison followed by 10 years of reporting probation is favorable enough compared to the statutory maximum of life in prison that no reasonable person would have gone to trial. While we do not pass upon the merits of Appellant's claims, we find that the record excerpts attached to the trial court's denial of the 3.850 motion are insufficient to establish conclusively that Appellant is not entitled to relief. We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. See Watts v. State, 136 So. 3d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing for evidentiary hearing on postconviction claim that counsel had not advised defendant about an insanity defense, where plea colloquy did not indicate that the defense had been evaluated).

Reversed and Remanded for evidentiary hearing.

Per Curiam.

Osterhaus, Kelsey, and Nordby, JJ., concur.