this claim, as well as an affidavit from Appellant’s mother stating that she made counsel aware of Appellant’s history of mental health issues. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying this claim as facially insufficient. In his second claim, Appellant alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for a competency hearing. Appellant alleges that he attempted to explain his psychiatric issues to the court during a pretrial hearing, that the trial judge instructed his counsel to put the information in writing and provide it to the state along with supporting evidence, and that his counsel failed to take the action directed by the court. The trial court erred in denying this claim as facially insufficient. See Coker v. State, 978 So.2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s
recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the failure of defense counsel to object to erroneous punishment charge authorizing an illegal sentence is ineffective assistance of counsel holding that defense counsels failure to notify the people that defendant wished to testify before the grand jury does not by itself amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and finding that det fendants conclusory allegation that this failure may have impacted his ability to present a viable defense to be insufficient to support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding that defense counsels failure to draft an order for mental evaluation of the appellant after obtaining the judges oral authorization amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel