Washer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Washer v. State

252 So. 3d 858

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D18-1088

StatusPublished

This text of 252 So. 3d 858 (Washer 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

Washer v. State, 252 So. 3d 858 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wayne Charles Washer 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 Three and Four. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Washer's claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on self-defense and failing to secure and introduce exculpatory evidence, namely a GPS device, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds One and Two and *859remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims 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.

COHEN, C.J., TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Wayne Charles Washer 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 Three and Four. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Washer's claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on self-defense and failing to secure and introduce exculpatory evidence, namely a GPS device, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds One and Two and *859remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims 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.

COHEN, C.J., TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 So. 3d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washer-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack