Ward v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ward v. State

84 So. 3d 379, 2012 WL 874564, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4214

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 2012

Docket5D11-3366

StatusPublished

This text of 84 So. 3d 379 (Ward 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

Ward v. State, 84 So. 3d 379, 2012 WL 874564, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4214 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Blake Ward appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion. In that motion, he claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to cite to State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), and argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury when it used Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 6.6. However, Ward is incorrect in his contentions as his appellate counsel did raise the Montgomery issue on appeal. Instead, we elect to treat this appeal as a Based on the reasoning in Dill v. State, 79 So.3d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), we grant the petition and remand for a new trial. As in Dill, the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Montgomery v. State, 70 So.3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), was issued during the pendency of Ward’s direct appeal in our court.

For the reasons set forth in Burton v. State, _ So.3d _ (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), we again cite conflict with Williams v. State, 40 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review granted, 64 So.3d 1262 (Fla.2011).

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED for a new trial.

PALMER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Blake Ward appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion. In that motion, he claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to cite to State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), and argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury when it used Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 6.6. However, Ward is incorrect in his contentions as his appellate counsel did raise the Montgomery issue on appeal. Instead, we elect to treat this appeal as a Based on the reasoning in Dill v. State, 79 So.3d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), we grant the petition and remand for a new trial. As in Dill, the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Montgomery v. State, 70 So.3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), was issued during the pendency of Ward’s direct appeal in our court.

For the reasons set forth in Burton v. State, _ So.3d _ (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), we again cite conflict with Williams v. State, 40 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review granted, 64 So.3d 1262 (Fla.2011).

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED for a new trial.

PALMER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 3d 379, 2012 WL 874564, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack