Lawrence C. Washington, Sr. v. State

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 27, 2017
Docket5D16-2902
StatusPublished

This text of Lawrence C. Washington, Sr. v. State (Lawrence C. Washington, Sr. 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
Lawrence C. Washington, Sr. v. State, (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LAWRENCE C. WASHINGTON, SR.,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-2902

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 3, 2017

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Lawrence C. Washington, Sr., Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence C. Washington, Sr. seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily

denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.850. Washington argued five claims in his motion, contending that his trial

counsel was ineffective for: 1) failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into potential

alibi witnesses; 2) allowing Washington to be convicted based on circumstantial evidence that was not inconsistent with his theory of innocence; 3) failing to object to the admission

of certain evidence; 4) failing to object to improper comments made by the State during

closing arguments; and 5) failing to move for a judgment of acquittal.

Because Claims One, Two, Three, and Four are facially insufficient, we reverse

the summary denial of those claims and remand for the trial court to strike the claims.

Washington is to be allowed sixty days under Rule 3.850(f)(2) to file an amended motion

alleging facially sufficient grounds for relief if he can do so in good faith. See Spera v.

State, 971 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 2007). We affirm Claim Five without further discussion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Spera v. State
971 So. 2d 754 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lawrence C. Washington, Sr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-c-washington-sr-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.