Background
Jacob Hageman appealed the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for Lee County.
In Ground 1, Hageman alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Morgan Shores, a fact witness, and Ingrid Conrad, a latent-print examiner. He alleged that both were available, described their expected exculpatory testimony, and explained why it could have affected the trial’s result.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District reversed the summary denial of Ground 1. Reviewing de novo and accepting Hageman’s allegations as true unless conclusively refuted by the record, the court held that the record excerpts attached to the postconviction court’s order did not conclusively show that he was entitled to no relief on that claim.
The court remanded with instructions for the postconviction court to either enter a new denial supported by record portions that conclusively refute the allegations, hold an evidentiary hearing, or conduct other appropriate proceedings. It affirmed without discussion the summary denial of Ground 2.
Key Takeaways
- A postconviction court may summarily deny a Rule 3.850 claim only when the record conclusively refutes it.
- An ineffective-assistance claim based on uncalled witnesses can require further proceedings when the motion sufficiently alleges availability, expected testimony, and prejudice.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that courts must support a summary postconviction denial with record materials that conclusively defeat the movant’s factual allegations. Where alleged exculpatory witnesses are not conclusively addressed by the attached record, an evidentiary hearing or other further proceedings may be required.