Jacob Hageman, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee. (2026)

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.

FOOTNOTES

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

WHITE, J.

TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA, J., concur.