is facially sufficient. Specifically, the appellant alleges that he was incompetent and did not understand the consequences of his plea, that he had a history of mental illness, had not taken his schizophrenia medication, was suffering from delusions and hearing voices at the time of the plea and that he informed counsel of his condition. Cf. Schultheis v. State, 12 So.3d 811, 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“A narrow argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the competency issue, however, is cognizable in the postconviction posture”); Coker v. State, 978 So.2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (recognizing the failure to raise a defendant’s alleged incompetency as a ground for asserting ineffective assistance of counsel); Luckey v. State, 979 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). The plea colloquy attached by the trial court
holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial holding that a defendant does not have the right to a jury trial where a plea of ngri is entered and the prosecution concedes that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense holding waiver of right to counsel at sentencing not voluntary when trial court tried to dissuade discharge of counsel defendant believed incompetent for the waiver to be voluntary the trial court must inquire into the reasons for the defendants dissatisfaction with his counsel to ensure that the defendant is not exercising a choice between incompetent or unprepared counsel and appearing pro se holding that claim that counsel was ineffective for allowing defendant to proceed while incompetent was facially insufficient where defendant did not allege he actually was incompetent to proceed to trial or insane at the time of his offense holding the statutory burden is on the defendant to prove he is incompetent to stand trial