he then asked the trial court questions indicating that he did not understand what was happening. Accordingly, Arseneau’s affirmative answers to the trial court’s limited questions were not sufficient to demons A 2007) (“There is nothing in the portions of the record presented to this Court that would suggest how Appellant’s alleged depression and delusions may have affected his competence to enter a plea. Consequently, an evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve this issue.”). Because the record does not conclusively refute Arseneau’s claim that he was incompetent to proceed and that counsel was therefore ineffective for failing to investigate his competency, the postconviction court erred in summarily denying this claim. See Houle v. State, 74 So.3d 143, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an
holding that the movants assertion that he failed to advise the plea court of counsels alleged deficiencies because he blamed himself for his lack of funds was undermined by the fact that the plea court advised the movant that he had the right to appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for counsel holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that record did not conclusively refute postconviction movants allegations that counsel was aware of movants long history of mental illness including the fact that he had been institutionalized multiple times had attempted to commit suicide was diagnosed as bipolar alcoholic and depressive and had a long history of being on and was currently on psychotropic medications holding that waiver of interest was proper where there had been a long delay in the enforcement action holding that the trial counsels performance was constitutionally deficient where counsel made a limited investigation into the petitioners background did not prepare a social history of the petitioner and was not aware that he had been sexually abused and raped as a child