ZETH TRAWICK, 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.
Zeth Trawick appeals the denial of postconviction relief claims under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his conviction for second-degree murder. The court affirms the denial of one ground but reverses the summary denial of a second ground regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to obtain exculpatory photographs of defensive wounds.
The trial court's summary denial of the ineffective assistance claim regarding the photographs was improper and must be reversed. The claim is not conclusively refuted by the record and therefore requires an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to obtain exculpatory photographs is not conclusively refuted by the record when the photographs could h…
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a postconviction relief claim must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing if the claim is not conclusively refuted by the a…
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“the jury found Appellant guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison”
Establishes the underlying conviction and sentence being challenged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTrawick was convicted of second-degree murder despite maintaining a self-defense theory at trial. He claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective as…
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 Exculpatory Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Zeth Trawick (“Appellant”) appeals the denial of two grounds of his twelve-ground motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of the first challenged ground without discussion. However, we reverse the summary denial of the second ground and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Throughout his trial for second-degree murder, Appellant maintained that. he killed the victim in self-defense. Nonetheless, the jury found Appellant guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison.1 Appellant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain exculpatory photographs and proceeding to trial without them. Specifically, he argued photographs of his hands and arms, taken by the DeLand Police Department, would have depicted a fresh cut, purportedly made by the victim’s knife during the altercation that resulted in the victim’s death. Appellant argued these photographs would have demonstrated that he had defensive wounds from attempting to deflect an attack. The trial court summarily denied this claim.
The record on appeal contains evidence that trial counsel otherwise explored Appellant’s self-defense theory and cross-examined the medical examiner concerning the injuries to both the victim and Appellant, However, this evidence does not conclusively refute Appellant’s claim that the introduction of the photographs would have bolstered his self-defense argument, especially in response to the State’s introduction of photographs of the victim’s defensive injuries and testimony from two witnesses denying the existence of Appellant’s injury. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of this ground and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. See Saunders v. State, 186 So.3d 56, 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“Because claim 2 is not conclusively refuted by the attached record, we remand for an evidentia-ry hearing.”),
AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; REMANDED with Instructions.
ORFINGER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.