DARWIN WARD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Darwin Ward appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make proper objections during his cocaine sale conviction trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the record did not conclusively refute Ward's ineffectiveness claim and requiring the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record excerpts that conclusively refute the claim.
The appellate court reversed the order denying post-conviction relief and remanded for the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing on the ineffectiveness claim or attach record excerpts that conclusively refute the defendant's claim. The court found that the record did not conclusively refute Ward's ineffectiveness allegation.
“the errors alleged were not fundamental and no timely objections were made during the proceedings”
The court's statement from the prior direct appeal regarding why the conviction was affirmed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWard was convicted of sale of cocaine. On direct appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, noting that alleged errors were not fundamental and no tim…
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 To Vacate Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEPHERD, J.
Darwin Ward appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence and seeks a new trial pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On direct appeal of the appellant’s conviction for sale of cocaine, we affirmed stating that “the errors alleged were not fundamental and no timely objections were made during the proceedings.” Ward v. State, 844 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). We also stated that our affirmance was without prejudice to appellant seeking post conviction relief. Appellant has now done so, contending that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make proper objections.
The state argued below thát appellant’s motion simply seeks' to rephrase -issues previously raised. The state is incorrect. On the direct appeal', appellant argued that the purported errors were fundamental entitling him to relief. The appellant now argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for not making the objections. We find that the record does not conclusively refute appellant’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying defendant’s motion for post conviction relief and remand with instructions to the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach those record excerpts which conclusively refute the defendant’s claim.- See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Reversed.