MARK WARD, 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.
The court affirmed the summary denial of most grounds for postconviction relief but reversed and remanded Ground Seven because the record did not conclusively refute Ward's claim that counsel ineffectively misadvised him about cross-examination regarding prior convictions.
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion when the record does not conclusively refute a claim that counsel affirmatively misadvised the defendant about the consequences of testifying.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief claim alleging counsel affirmatively misadvised the defendant about the scope of cross-examin…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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.”
Standard for when summary denial of postconviction relief is appropriate
Mark Ward filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming in Ground Seven that his counsel ineffecti…
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
Mark Ward appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, and Eight. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Ward’s claim that counsel was ineffective for misadvising him that if he decided to testify in his own defense the State could inquire into the specific nature of his prior convictions, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Seven and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing. Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (“[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.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996))); see also Joseph v. State, 214 So.3d 741, 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (reversing summary denial where trial court did not attach records conclusively refuting Joseph’s claim that his attorney affirmatively misadvised him not to testify because nature of his prior offenses, rather than number, would be made known to jury).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)
- Drinel Joseph v. State, 214 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)