Jason Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jason Williams v. State

207 So. 3d 253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11166

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 2016

Docket5D16-575

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 So. 3d 253 (Jason Williams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jason Williams v. State, 207 So. 3d 253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11166 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jason Williams 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, Three, and Four. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Williams’ claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to portions of the self-defense jury instruction that improperly shifted the burden of proof, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Four and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim 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.

LAWSON, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jason Williams 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, Three, and Four. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Williams’ claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to portions of the self-defense jury instruction that improperly shifted the burden of proof, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Four and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim 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.

LAWSON, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 So. 3d 253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-williams-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack