Filed: Feb. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 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 Atto
Summary: 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 Attor..
More
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.
2