IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
STORM PATRICK WOOD, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D14-95
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
__________________________/
Opinion filed August 7, 2014.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.
Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.
Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee; Crystal
McBee Frusciante of The Frusciante Law Firm, P.A., Jupiter, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
THOMAS, J.
Appellant was convicted of Driving Under the Influence-Manslaughter,
Felony Driving While License Suspended or Revoked, and Aggravated Fleeing to
Elude a Law Enforcement Officer Causing Death. Appellant appeals the lower
court's order summarily denying his Motion for Post-Conviction Relief and to
Vacate Judgment and Sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850, raising seven grounds for relief. We affirm the lower court’s
summary denial of all but one of Appellant’s claims.
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant
must show that: (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) counsel's
deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). A trial court may summarily
deny relief without granting an evidentiary hearing if the record conclusively
establishes that the defendant is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(d)
(allowing trial court to summarily deny relief “[i]f the motion, files, and records in
the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief”).
On appeal, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in summarily denying
Ground One of his postconviction motion, as the record did not conclusively refute
his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain and present an
independent accident reconstruction expert. We express no opinion as to the
merits of Appellant’s claim, but find that Appellant has alleged a facially sufficient
claim under Ground One. We agree with Appellant that the record before us does
not conclusively refute this claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an
evidentiary hearing on this issue. See Brantley v. State, 912 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla.
3d DCA 2005) (reversing summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion and remanding
for an evidentiary hearing because “we are obligated to reverse ‘unless the record
2
shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief . . . .’”) (emphasis
omitted).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for an
evidentiary hearing.
LEWIS, C.J., and OSTERHAUS, J., CONCUR.
3