Wood v. State Of Fla.

• Decision Date: 30 April 2010
• Docket Number: No. 5D08-2960.,5D08-2960.
• Citation: 35 So.3d 55
• Parties: Chad A. WOOD, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

35 So.3d 55

Chad A. WOOD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D08-2960.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.

April 30, 2010.

35 So.3d 56

Bradley N. Laurent and Carlus L. Haynes of the Law Office of Haynes and Laurent, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

Chad Wood (defendant) appeals the final order entered by the trial court denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Determining that the trial court erred in failing to consider the contents of the memorandum of law which the defendant filed in support of his rule 3.850 motion, which was timely filed and sworn to under oath, we reverse and remand to allow the trial court to properly consider the contents of the memorandum.

The defendant filed a motion seeking post-conviction relief following his conviction on one count of sexual battery on a person under twelve years of age. After his motion was twice dismissed with leave to amend, the defendant filed a second amended motion for post-conviction relief. The motion set forth the same ten claims as were set forth in his previous motions and the motion contained a proper oath. At the same time, the defendant filed a separate amended memorandum of law which set forth additional factual details and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The memorandum of law also contained a proper oath. All filings were timely.¹ The trial court summarily denied all but one of the defendant's ten claims for relief set forth in his motion and, after conducting an evidentiary hearing thereon, denied that claim as well. We affirm the trial court's rulings without discussion except for four claims which the trial court summarily denied as being facially insufficient without properly considering the contents of the defendant's memorandum of law.

With regard to sub-claim 2 under claim 7, the defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make objections during the State's presentation of its witnesses and during the State's closing argument. The trial court denied the sub-claim on the following basis:

Defendant does not identify any specific matters that were actually objectionable, how he was prejudiced within the meaning of Strickland by the absence of any particular matter, nor does he allege the

35 So.3d 57

...