IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ROBERT RIDDLE CLINTON,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D15-1647
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 24, 2016
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Volusia County,
Margaret W. Hudson, Judge.
Robert Riddle Clinton, Avon Park, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Robert Riddle Clinton appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Appellant was charged with ten
counts of possession of photographs of sexual performance by a child, one count of
sexual battery on a person less than twelve years old, and forty counts of promoting
sexual performance of a child. He pled no contest to all the charges, and the State
reduced the sexual battery to lewd and lascivious molestation. Appellant was
adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life in prison for the lewd and lascivious molestation.
He was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment for the ten counts of possession of
photographs of sexual performance and fifteen years imprisonment for each of the forty
counts of promoting sexual performance of a child. The sentences were to run
concurrently.
We affirm the postconviction court's denial of grounds one and three of the
motion. Appellant's second and fourth grounds for relief allege ineffective assistance of
counsel for failure to obtain a mental health evaluation of Appellant in order to assert
that: (1) he was incompetent to enter a plea; and (2) that he was insane at the time he
committed the crimes. We have reviewed and affirm the postconviction court's ruling
with regard to the incompetency to enter a plea claim.
We next address the other claim asserted in grounds two and four, that counsel
was ineffective for not properly pursuing an insanity defense. At the sentencing
hearing, Appellant responded affirmatively when asked if he believed he was suffering
from any mental condition or ailment that may have caused him, to some degree, to
commit the charged offenses. He testified that he felt he was impaired at the time he
committed the offense and that he suffered from stress in the past. He denied receiving
any mental health treatment or counseling prior to committing those crimes. Appellant
testified that because of his mental condition, he could not appreciate the nature or
consequences of the charged conduct at the time he engaged in it. During the
sentencing hearing, Appellant's counsel urged the court to take that testimony into
account. The sentencing court stated that it had no evidence that Appellant suffered
from any mental health conditions or diminished capacity.
2
The postconviction court denied the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for
failing to pursue an insanity defense because the motion only alleged in a conclusory
fashion that Appellant was "impaired" at the time of the offenses and that he did not
understand that what he was doing was criminal. We agree with the trial court that
Appellant's allegations were conclusory; however, the appropriate action is to afford
Appellant at least one opportunity to amend those portions of his motion in accordance
with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (f)(3); Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754,
761 (Fla. 2007); Stokes v. State, 107 So. 3d 510, 510 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); and Luckey
v. State, 979 So. 2d 353, 354-55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Accordingly, we reverse in part
and remand with instructions to the trial court to permit Appellant the opportunity to
amend grounds two and four regarding the claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for
failure to pursue an insanity defense. We affirm as to all other issues.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
TORPY, EVANDER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
3