WASHER
v.
STATE
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.
A postconviction motion for relief cannot be summarily denied when the record does not conclusively refute claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a self-defense instruction and failing to secure exculpatory evidence.
[1] A postconviction motion for relief cannot be summarily denied on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel unless the motion, files, and records in the case conclusivel…
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 intelligenceWayne Charles Washer was convicted and filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging in part that …
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 Evidentiary Hearing Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wayne Charles Washer 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 Three and Four. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Washer's claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on self-defense and failing to secure and introduce exculpatory evidence, namely a GPS device, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds One and Two and *859remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. See 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) )).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., 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)