BLAKE WARD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.850 Motion For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Amos Augustus Williams v. State, 40 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- BIR v. State, 64 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Dill v. State, 79 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)