Julian A. Bartletto v. State of Florida ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D18-3306
    _____________________________
    JULIAN A. BARTLETTO,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
    Marianne L. Aho, Judge.
    September 18, 2019
    PER CURIAM.
    Julian A. Bartletto appeals the summary denial of his motion
    for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal
    Procedure 3.850. We reject without further discussion all but one
    of his claims.
    In 2010, the State filed an eight-count information against
    Bartletto. ∗ The next year, he was declared incompetent to stand
    ∗
    Aggravated assault (count 1), armed robbery (count 2),
    attempted armed robbery (count 3), armed burglary with an
    assault or battery (counts 4 & 5), kidnapping with a firearm
    (counts 6 & 7) and violation of an injunction (count 8).
    trial and committed to a mental treatment facility. After about
    three years, the court determined that Bartletto had regained his
    competency to proceed. He then entered a negotiated plea to all
    eight counts in exchange for a sentence in the range of fifteen to
    fifty years’ imprisonment, with a ten-year minimum mandatory for
    one of the counts. He was eventually sentenced to twenty-eight
    years in prison.
    In a portion of Bartletto’s third ground for postconviction
    relief, he argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to
    investigate and advise him of an insanity defense. He alleged that
    he suffers from “mental psychosis (NOS) as diagnosed by
    evaluating doctors who recommended [he] be committed to the
    State Hospital.” He contended the condition causes him to “lose
    contact with reality” and to act out violently and that he was
    insane at the time of the crimes. He further alleged that in 2010
    he had been “Baker Acted.”
    The postconviction court denied the claim because (1)
    Bartletto informed the trial court during the plea hearing that his
    attorney had discussed all possible defenses with him, (2) his
    attorney’s advice to plead guilty rather than risk trial (and
    numerous possible life sentences) was a reasonable strategic
    decision, and (3) Bartletto would not have insisted on going to trial
    even if he were aware of the insanity defense because the State
    had a strong case against him and he was facing life in prison for
    multiple counts. We are constrained to reverse for two reasons.
    First, Bartletto’s testimony that he reviewed all possible
    defenses with his attorney is insufficient, standing alone, to refute
    his claim that counsel failed to advise him of the insanity defense.
    See Brown v. State, 
    270 So. 3d 530
    , 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[I]t
    is error to summarily deny a claim of ineffective assistance of
    counsel based on counsel’s failure to investigate a potential defense
    . . . where the record attachments do not conclusively show that
    the defendant was made aware of the potential defense . . . prior
    to entering the plea.”). Second, this Court cannot review the
    postconviction court’s determination on the merits because the
    court did not attach any documents supporting its conclusions that
    counsel’s advice to enter a plea was a reasonable strategic
    judgment and that Bartletto would have insisted on going to trial
    2
    had he been aware of the defense. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5)
    (stating that when denying a facially sufficient claim on the merits,
    the court must attach “a copy of that portion of the files and records
    that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief”);
    Cf. Guisasola v. State, 
    667 So. 2d 248
    , 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[A]
    trial court’s finding that some action or inaction by defense counsel
    was tactical is generally inappropriate without an evidentiary
    hearing.”); Grosvenor v. State, 
    874 So. 2d 1176
    , 1181-82 (Fla. 2004)
    (explaining that when determining the credibility of a defendant’s
    claim that he would not have accepted plea had he been advised of
    potential defense, the court should consider the totality of the
    circumstances surrounding the plea, including whether a
    particular defense was likely to succeed at trial).
    We therefore reverse the denial of this claim and remand for
    an evidentiary hearing.
    AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
    RAY, C.J., and ROBERTS and JAY, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Julian A. Bartletto, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant
    Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-3306

Filed Date: 9/18/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/18/2019