JACOB HAGEMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing when the record does not conclusively refute the defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] On appeal of a summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, if the record does not conclusively refute the defendant's factual allegations, the appellate court m…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacob Hageman was convicted in Lee County Circuit Court. He filed an amended motion for postconviction relief alleging that his trial counsel was inef…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-1535 Lower Tribunal No. 17-CF-017936
JACOB HAGEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Margaret O. Steinbeck, Judge.
October 9, 2026
WHITE, J.
Jacob Hageman appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Our review is de novo, and we must accept Hageman's factual allegations as true unless the record refutes them. See Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037, 1041 (Fla. 2000); Chambers v. State, 363 So. 3d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).
Ground 1 of Hageman's amended motion alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to call two exculpatory witnesses: Morgan Shores (a fact witness); and Ingrid Conrad (a latent print examiner). Hageman claimed that both witnesses were available to testify, summarized the substance of their expected testimony, and explained why he believed that testimony would have changed the outcome of the trial. Because the portions of the record attached to the postconviction court's order do not “show[] conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief" on Ground 1, we must reverse and remand “for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief."¹ Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Therefore, we reverse the order denying Hageman's amended motion as to Ground 1, and remand for the postconviction court to enter a new order of denial attaching portions of the record conclusively refuting Hageman's allegations, hold an evidentiary hearing, or conduct other proceedings consistent with this opinion and applicable law.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA, J., concur.
Rachel E. Reese, of Rachel Reese, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2000)
- Chambers v. State, 363 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)