PATRICK MAXWELL, 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.
Patrick Maxwell appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an independent act jury instruction regarding his codefendant's attempted sexual battery. The appellate court reversed and remanded because Maxwell's claim was not conclusively refuted by the record and an evidentiary hearing was required.
The court reversed the summary denial because Maxwell's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not conclusively refuted by the record and was not facially invalid. The postconviction court was required to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or grant an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A claim raised in a motion for postconviction relief must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record to warrant summary denial.
[2] When reviewing the summary denial of a postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, a court must accept the defendant's factual allegations as true to the extent…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The 'independent act' doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, 'which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.'”
Establishes the legal standard for the independent act doctrine applicable to Maxwell's claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaxwell and a codefendant planned to rob the home of the codefendant's acquaintance. When the acquaintance's girlfriend returned home during the robbe…
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 Common Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
Patrick Maxwell appeals the summary denial of his Florida. Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. After a jury trial, Maxwell was convicted of attempted sexual battery with physical force and a firearm, burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery with a firearm, robbery with a firearm and a mask, and false imprisonment with a weapon.
*1265Maxwell alleged three grounds for relief in his motion. However, on appeal, he raises only one issue, which pertains solely to his conviction for the attempted sexual battery.1 Maxwell argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the court instruct the jury on the independent act instruction set forth in Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.6(Z). “The ‘independent act’ doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, ‘which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’ ” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla.2000) (quoting Dell v. State, 661 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)).
Here, in his motion, Maxwell acknowledged that he and his codefendant had made arrangements to rob the home of the codefendant’s acquaintance. The acquaintance was not home, but his girl-' friend returned during the course of the robbery, and the codefendant then attempted to sexually batter her. Maxwell did not personally attempt to commit the sexual battery and alleged that the attempted sexual battery committed by the codefendant was outside of their original common plan. In summarily denying this ground of the motion, the postconviction court found that the attempted sexual battery was intrinsically related to and arose from the original plan. Therefore, the court concluded that the independent act doctrine was not applicable and there was no basis for counsel to request the independent act instruction.
“To uphold the [postconvietion] court’s summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.” Foster v. State, 810 So.2d 910, 914 (Fla.2002) (quoting Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla.1999)). Furthermore, because no evidentiary hearing was held, “we must accept the defendant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record.” Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1041 (Fla.2000) (citing Peede, 748 So.2d at 257; Lightbourne v. Dugger, 549 So.2d 1364, 1365 (Fla.1989); Harich v. State, 484 So.2d 1239, 1241 (Fla.1986)).
Our review reveals that Maxwell’s claim is not conclusively refuted by the records attached to the order and is not facially invalid. We therefore reverse the order under review and remand with instructions that the court either attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute this claim or grant an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
TORPY, COHEN, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terry v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…rily denied,” and “[a] copy of that portion of the files and records in the case that conclusively shows that the defendant is not entitled to relief . . . shall be attached to the order summarily denying these claims.” See also Maxwell v. State, 169 So. 3d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“To uphold the [postconviction] court’s summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.” (quoting Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910, 914…
-
Goodwin v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
-
Germaine Williams v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2000)
- Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1999)
- Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2002)
- Florida Plastering v. Alderman, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)
- RAY v. State, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)
- Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1986)
- Dell v. State, 661 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Lightbourne v. Dugger, 549 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1989)
- Ward v. State, 19 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Eugenia Austin v. State, 968 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)