Reuben Callwood v. State of Florida

FIFTH D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2025-0947
L.T. Case No. 16-2021-CF-1364-A
_____________________________
R EUBEN C ALLWOOD,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA ,
Appellee.
_____________________________
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
R. Anthony Salem, Judge.
Rick A. Sichta and Susanne K. Sichta, of The Sichta Firm, LLC,
Jacksonville, for Appellant.
James 	Uthmeier, 	Attorney 	General, 	and 	Robert 	Charles 	Lee,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
February 6, 2026
P ER C URIAM.
Reuben Callwood appeals the postconviction court’s summary
denial of his motions for postconviction relief filed pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The first motion was
filed 	by 	Appellant 	while 	pro 	se. 	Subsequently, 	postconviction
counsel for appellant filed a notice of appearance that specifically
adopted the pro se motion and sought leave to amend the motion.
A second supplemental motion was then filed adding new claims

2
for relief. The postconviction court entered its order summarily
denying two of the sub-claims raised in the supplemental motion,
but did not address the issues raised in the original motion or one
of the sub-claims in the supplemental.
We therefore affirm the trial court’s order in all respects
except for its summary denial of (1) the claims in Appellant’s first
postconviction motion filed pro se on May 24, 2023, which were
adopted by postconviction counsel on October 12, 2023, and (2)
claim 	(1)(C) 	of 	the 	second 	postconviction 	motion 	filed 	by
postconviction counsel. We vacate the trial court’s summary denial
of those claims and remand for further proceedings. See Bridges v.
State, 81 So. 3d 616, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“Florida case law
indicates that when a trial court summarily denies one or more
grounds of a rule 3.850 motion, the court’s order must state its
rationale for summarily denying as to each issue raised.” (citing
Valentine v. State, 873 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“The [trial]
court failed to consider and address the claims. . . . This does not
permit meaningful appellate review by this court. On remand, the
court should make a finding for each claim that it is either facially
invalid and state a brief reason therefor[ ], or that it is conclusively
refuted by the record, attaching relevant portions of the record, or
. . . making a specific reference to the attached whole.”); Loomis v.
State, 691 So. 2d 34, 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“[The trial court] must
attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively
establish that the appellant is entitled to no relief as to the claims
advanced along with its reasons for so concluding. Alternatively, it
must explain why those claims are facially insufficient or cannot
be 	appropriately 	considered 	under 	rule 	3.850.” 	(emphasis
omitted)))).
A FFIRMED 	IN 	PART; 	V ACATED 	IN 	PART ; 	R EMANDED 	WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
WALLIS, H ARRIS, and MAC IVER , JJ., concur.

3
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________