JACOB HAGEMAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

2024-1535Fla Dist Ct App 6th

Gesamter Gesetzestext

S IXTH D ISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-1535
Lower Tribunal No. 17-CF-017936
_____________________________
J ACOB H AGEMAN,
Appellant,
v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
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
2
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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
1 We affirm the summary denial of Ground 2 of the amended motion without
further discussion.

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

# 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.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

1 We affirm the summary denial of Ground 2 of the amended motion without
further discussion.

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.