Charles Owens v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 31, 2021
Docket1D20-1467
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-1467
_____________________________
CHARLES OWENS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.
Robert R. Wheeler, Judge.
August 31, 2021
LONG, J.
Charles Owens appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion
for postconviction relief. At issue is his trial counsel’s choice not to
pursue a competency evaluation and not to present mental health
mitigation evidence at Owens’s sentencing. Owens argues these
acts or omissions by his trial counsel “were outside the wide range
of professionally competent assistance” to the point that counsel
“was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by
the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687, 690 (1984).
Below, trial counsel testified that he did not pursue a
competency evaluation because, despite Owens’s mental illness, he
demonstrated competence and understanding of the legal
proceeding against him and was able to assist in his defense. And
regarding sentencing, trial counsel considered and rejected mental
illness evidence in favor of having Owens take full responsibility
for his actions to set him in contrast to his co-defendant.
“Not every manifestation of mental illness demonstrates
incompetence to stand trial; rather, the evidence must indicate a
present inability to assist counsel or understand the charges.”
Card v. Singletary, 981 F. 2d 481, 487–88 (11th Cir. 1992). The
defense witnesses offered no evidence of Owens’s legal
incompetence and instead conflated the presence of mental illness
with legal competence. The unchallenged evidence below was that,
although suffering from manifestations of his mental illness,
Owens was legally competent at the time of trial because he had
the ability to assist his counsel and understand the charges
against him.
Regarding trial counsel’s representation at sentencing, if an
action taken by trial counsel “might be considered sound trial
strategy,” there is no deficient performance. Michel v. Louisiana,
350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955). Here, trial counsel’s strategy was decided
after considering other relevant options, including the one now
argued by Owens. That strategy was reasonable. We reject
Owens’s attempt to second-guess his counsel’s strategy after an
adverse result.
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Nathan Robert Prince of the Law Office of Nathan Prince,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.
2
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert “Charlie” Lee,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
3