John Hayward v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

John Hayward v. State

200 So. 3d 158, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9672, 2016 WL 3458556

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 2016

Docket5D15-2609

StatusPublished

This text of 200 So. 3d 158 (John Hayward 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

John Hayward v. State, 200 So. 3d 158, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9672, 2016 WL 3458556 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Hayward 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, Five, and the supplemental claim. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Hayward’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of collateral *159 crimes evidence, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Four and remand' for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evi-dentiary 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.

ORFINGER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John Hayward 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, Five, and the supplemental claim. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Hayward’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of collateral *159 crimes evidence, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Four and remand' for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evi-dentiary 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.

ORFINGER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 3d 158, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9672, 2016 WL 3458556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-hayward-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack