below, appellant failed to present any medical records or expert testimony to support the claim that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to pursue an insanity defense based on appellant’s long-term use of intoxicants. See Cirack v. State, 201 So.2d 706, 709 (Fla.1967) (“The law recognizes insanity super-induced by the long and continued use of intoxicants so as to produce a fixed and settled frenzy or insanity either permanent or intermittent.” (internal quotations omitted)), superseded, by statute on other grounds as stated in Linn v. Fos-sum, 946 So.2d 1032, 1037 (Fla.2006); see also Brunner v. State, 683 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Expert testimony would be necessary to establish such a defense. See Calandra v. State, 727 So.2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). Without medical records or expert testimony
holding that jurors do not need expert testimony on matters of common knowledge holding that expert testimony should not be admitted as to a matter that is obviously within the common knowledge of jurors because such testimony almost by definition can be of no assistance 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 that expert testimony is unnecessary where the case is not a case in which lay jurors would be unable to grasp the issues without expert assistance holding that whether a defendant is insane because of the long and continued use of intoxicants is not within the ordinary understanding of jurors and that in the absence of expert testimony a defendant would not be entitled to an instruction based on drank