JASON OSBORN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jason Osborn appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion raising six grounds of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the denial of four grounds but reversed and remanded two grounds because the record did not conclusively refute the proposed testimony of witnesses regarding Deputy Hyrc's credibility and Officer Pruitt's testimony.
The court affirmed the summary denial of grounds 2, 3, 4, and 6 but reversed the summary denial of grounds 1 and 5, holding that nothing in the attached record conclusively refuted the proposed testimony from Combs, Ramirez, and Jenkins, or the allegations in ground 5, and therefore the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing or attach records conclusively refuting those grounds.
[1] A postconviction relief motion must be granted an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
[2] A postconviction relief motion may not be summarily denied if the attached record does not conclusively refute the grounds raised.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It was error for the trial court to summarily deny grounds 1 and 5 of Appellant's motion because nothing in the attached record conclusively refutes the proposed testimony from Combs, Ramirez, and Jenkins, or the allegations in ground 5.”
Establishes the core holding that summary denial was improper when the record did not conclusively refute the allegations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsborn was convicted in connection with a traffic stop by Deputy Hyrc. In his postconviction motion, he alleged his attorney failed to adequately prep…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLIS, J.
Appellant appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, in which he raised six grounds of alleged error. We affirm the portion of the order that summarily denied grounds 2, 3, 4, and 6. However, we reverse the portion of the order that denied grounds 1 and 5, and remand for further proceedings.
In ground 1 of his postconviction motion, Appellant alleged that his attorney was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare his case and that his attorney knew about three witnesses who would have supported his motion to suppress evidence gathered during a traffic stop by Deputy Hyrc. Appellant specifically alleged that his attorney knew that Gerald Combs, a private investigator, would have contradicted Deputy Hyrc's claim that he had a visual on Appellant's car before the stop. Appellant additionally alleged that his attorney knew that two other witnesses, Kimberly Ramirez and Brandy Jenkins, would have impeached Deputy Hyrc's testimony that he was speeding. In ground 5, Appellant alleged that his attorney was ineffective for failing to depose Officer Pruitt, who testified to inculpatory statements that Appellant denies making, and for failing to discover the names of other officers present during his hospitalization after his arrest.
It was error for the trial court to summarily deny grounds 1 and 5 of Appellant's motion because nothing in the attached record conclusively refutes the proposed testimony from Combs, Ramirez, and Jenkins, or the allegations in ground 5. See Burt
v. State, 225 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (reversing order summarily denying motion for postconviction relief and remanding for trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting grounds raised in motion or to hold evidentiary hearing on those grounds); see also Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (reiterating general proposition that "a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient").
Therefore, we reverse and remand grounds 1 and 5 for reconsideration by the postconviction court. 2 AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- Issac Burt v. State, 225 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)