REGINALD WAY II, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Reginald Way II challenged the trial court's summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The appellate court reversed the summary denial of two of five claims that were facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record, remanding those claims for further proceedings.
Two of the five ineffective assistance of counsel claims were facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the portions of the record attached by the trial court. The trial court erred in summarily denying these two claims and they must be remanded for further proceedings.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is facially sufficient if it alleges facts that, if proven, would establish a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment ri…
[2] A trial court errs in summarily denying a post-conviction relief motion if the claims raised are facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object when appellant, who was not disruptive, was made to wear leg restraints, which were seen and heard by the jury, during his trial. This claim was facially sufficient.”
Establishes the first ineffective assistance claim and determines it met the facial sufficiency threshold.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Way was tried in the trial court and wore leg restraints during trial that were visible and audible to the jury, despite not being disruptiv…
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
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s final order summarily denying his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking post-conviction relief. We conclude that two of the five claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised by appellant were facially sufficient and not refuted by the portions of the record attached by the trial court to its order. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of those two claims and remand those claims for further proceedings. In all other respects, we affirm without discussion the trial court’s order.
Appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object when appellant, who was not disruptive, was made to wear leg restraints, which were seen and heard by the jury, during his trial. This claim was facially sufficient. See Torres v. State, 9 So.3d 746, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Jensen v. State, 964 So.2d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Miller v. State, 852 So.2d 904, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The portions of the record attached by the trial court to its order do not conclusively refute this claim. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it summarily denied it.
Appellant also claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel mentioned in opening statement and closing argument an arrest on an unrelated charge in a neighboring county, and permitted the state to refer to that charge in closing argument as well. This claim was also facially sufficient, see generally Pomposello v. State, 940 So.2d 500, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Haynes v. State, 729 So.2d 498, 500-01 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Johnson v. State, 611 So.2d 88, 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and not conclusively refuted by the portions of the record attached by the trial court to its order. Accordingly, the trial court also erred when it summarily denied this claim.
We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the claims that appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object when appellant, who was *427not disruptive, was made to wear leg restraints, which were seen and heard by the jury, during his trial, and mentioned in opening statement and closing argument an arrest on an unrelated charge in a neighboring county, permitting the state to refer to that charge in closing argument as well. We remand those claims. Should the trial court again conclude that those claims are conclusively refuted by the record, it shall attach to its order denying relief the pertinent portions of the record; otherwise, it shall hold a hearing. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
HAWKES, C.J., KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. State, 274 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Torres v. State, 9 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Adjustco, Inc. v. Sibley, 611 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Jensen v. State, 964 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Wallace v. State, 852 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Miller v. State, 852 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Michael Grady & Fraternal Order v. City OF Orlando, 729 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Haynes v. State, 729 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Pomposello v. State, 940 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)