## Facts

- Tommy S. Groover was convicted in Florida circuit court of three counts of first-degree murder and received death sentences on two counts and a life sentence on the third.
- Groover’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in *Groover v. State*, 458 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1984).
- While incarcerated before trial, Groover was allegedly administered large doses of an antipsychotic medication.
- Groover later sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and requested a stay of execution.
- The Rule 3.850 motion alleged, among other grounds, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a psychological evaluation and failing to raise or litigate competency despite information suggesting serious mental impairment (including alleged brain damage, intellectual limitations, and significant medication side effects).
- Groover also asserted multiple additional postconviction claims attacking the conduct of the trial and sentencing, including challenges to the admission/use of Groover’s statements, allegations of prosecutorial vindictiveness after he withdrew from a plea arrangement, and claims that counsel should have pursued different defenses or presented additional mitigating evidence.
- The trial court summarily denied the Rule 3.850 motion and denied a stay of execution without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
- Groover appealed the summary denial to the Florida Supreme Court and again sought a stay of execution.

## Issues

1. Whether Groover’s Rule 3.850 claims that were litigated at trial and on direct appeal, or that could have been raised on direct appeal, were barred from collateral review.
2. Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Groover’s fact-based claims that (a) he may have been incompetent during trial due to mental impairment and heavy antipsychotic medication and (b) counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate mental health and seek a competency evaluation.
3. Whether a stay of execution should issue while the trial court conducts an evidentiary hearing on any facially sufficient, record-unresolved postconviction claims.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court granted a stay of execution.
- The court affirmed the summary denial of many of Groover’s postconviction claims as procedurally barred, not cognizable in Rule 3.850, or meritless.
- The court held that claims attacking the use of Groover’s statements at trial were not cognizable in a Rule 3.850 proceeding because they had been fully litigated at trial and on direct appeal.
- The court held that Groover’s prosecutorial-vindictiveness allegations were procedurally barred because they should have been raised on direct appeal, and that they lacked merit as well.
- The court rejected certain ineffective-assistance theories without a hearing where the alleged omitted mitigation was largely cumulative of what the jury heard and where counsel’s choice not to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense fit a reasoned trial strategy.
- The court reversed the summary denial as to the mental-health/competency-related cluster of claims, concluding that Groover had alleged specific facts (including heavy antipsychotic dosing and serious mental impairment) that were not conclusively refuted by the record and therefore required an evidentiary hearing.
- The case was remanded to the trial court for a limited evidentiary hearing on those specified competency/mental-condition and related ineffective-assistance issues.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 3.850 is not a substitute for direct appeal; claims previously litigated on direct review, and claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not, may be barred or not cognizable in collateral proceedings.
- A trial court may summarily deny a Rule 3.850 motion only when (a) the motion is legally insufficient or (b) the record conclusively refutes the material factual allegations; otherwise, an evidentiary hearing is required.
- A defendant may not be tried while incompetent; postconviction allegations that the defendant may have been incompetent can require fact-finding when the existing record does not conclusively resolve competency.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require allegations supporting deficient performance and prejudice; when counsel’s alleged failures involve unperformed investigation into mental condition or competency, live testimony and record development may be necessary to resolve whether counsel acted reasonably and whether the outcome was affected.
- In a capital postconviction case, when an evidentiary hearing is required on a potentially meritorious, fact-dependent claim, a stay of execution is appropriate to allow the claim to be litigated in the trial court.

## Conclusion

In *Tommy S. Groover v. Florida*, the Florida Supreme Court stayed Groover’s execution and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because his Rule 3.850 motion alleged specific, record-unresolved facts suggesting he may have been tried while incompetent due to serious mental impairment and heavy antipsychotic medication, and that counsel may have been ineffective for failing to investigate and litigate those issues; the court otherwise affirmed the summary denial of Groover’s remaining postconviction claims as barred, not cognizable, or without merit.


Tommy S. Groover v. Florida, 489 So. 2d 15 (1986)