IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL cIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY STATE, FLORIDA GLORIA B. WILLIAMS, Defendant, ve CASE NO: 2017-CF-00539 STATE OF FLORIDA H Plaintiff. MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF i 1. Name and location of the court that entered the judgment of conviction or sentence under attack: Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida. 2. Date of judgment of conviction: June 8, 2018 i 3. Length of sentence: 18 years Department of Corrections 4. Nature of offense(s) involved (all counts): Count I: Kidnapping; Count Il: Interference with custody in Violation of Custody Order | 5. Was this judgment the result of a plea or trial? Plea. 6. What was your plea? Guilty. If you entered one plea to one count and a different plea to another count, give details: Not Applicable. | 7. Kind of trial: Not Applicable. FI LE D DEC 14 2023 atc. oF coun 18. Did you testify at the trial or any pretrial hearing? Not Applicable. 9. Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction? Yes. 10. If you did appeal, answer the following: (a) Name of court: First District Court of Appeal (b) Result : Denied (c) Date of result: Mandate: 08/26/19 (d) Citation ( if known): 1D18-2898 14. Other than a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, have you previously filed any petitions, applications, motions, etc., with tespect to this judgment in this court? Motion for Reduction of Sentence pursuant to Fla, R. Crim. P. 3.800(c). 12. If your answer to number 11 was “yes”, give the following information (applies only to proceedings in this court): (a)(1) Nature of the proceeding: Begger’s Plea (3.800(c)) (2) Grounds raised: Not Applicable. (3) Did you receive an evidentiary hearing on your petition, application, motion, etc.? No. (4) Result: Dismissed (untimely) (5) Date of result: 04/04/22 | (b) As to any second petition, application, motion, etc., give the same information: Not Applicable. (1) Nature of the proceeding: (2) Grounds raised:(3) Did you receive an evidentiary hearing on your petition, application, motion, etc.? Not Applicable. (4) Result: (5) Date of result: 13. If a previous motion or motions have been filed, the reason or reasons the claim or claims in the present motion were not raised in the former motion or motions: Not Applicable. 14. Other than a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, have you previously filed any petitions, applications, motions, etc. in any other court? Not Applicable. | 15. If your answer to 14 was “yes”, give the following information: | (a)(1) Name of court: Not Applicable. (2) Nature of the proceeding: Not Applicable. (3) Grounds raised: Not Applicable. (4) Did you receive an evidentiary hearing on your application, petition, motion, etc? Not Applicable. (5) Result:Not Applicable. (6) Date of result:Not Applicable. | (b) As to any second petition, application, motion, etc., give the same information: Not Applicable. | || GROUND ONE: COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO | INVESTIGATE AND PRESENT DEFENDANT'S MENTAL HEALTH AS ¢ DEFENSE Counsel knew or became aware of the defendant's mental health illness shortly after the onset of his representation of her. The Defendant provided defense counsel with her diagnosis of Depression, Social Anxiety Disorder, PTSD and Pseudocyesis, in which Defendant's mental health evaluation confirms that Defendant carried all symptoms of same. Defendant also! made Counsel aware of the medications she was prescribed for said disorders, which was Buspar. This medication is specifically prescribed for depression and anxiety disorder. Counsel failed to conduct even the most rudimentary | investigation into Defendant's mental health for use in her case. Counsel sought the opinion of a mental health expert, however, she failed to present the defendant's mental health history records and expert opinion, regardless of the fact that it was beneficial to the Defendant's defense/case in showing her struggles with what was at times very debilitating mental health illnesses. Had Counsel presented this evidence, the sentencing court would have heard about the defendant's many mental health issues related to her lengthy trauma associated history, which required specialized treatment/and is not related to substance abuse. The Court would also have heard that the defendant is amenable to treatment, both psychotherapeutic and medicinal. Counsel actions in not providing beneficial testimony in the form of Defendant's mental health history equates just sitting on evidence that would have helped her client. | Furthermore, Counsel could have and should have contacted the Florida Department of Corrections as to the Defendant's specific treatment needs andinquired whether or not the Department had the capability to provide the treatment needed by the defendant. Had counsel investigated and presented the records and testimony of the mental health expert as defense, there is a reasonable probability that the court would have recognized that the Defendant was incapable of having the mens rea necessary to commit the alleged crime with full and cognizant provocation on her part. Had defense Counsel | performed her duties adequately and up to standard guaranteed Defendant by the U.S. Constitution, she would have conducted a proper and thorough investigation into Defendant's mental health history to use in her defense and Defendant could have very well received a much lower sentence. Counsel actually hindered Defendant's defense when she was suppose to be dedicated to her cause. Rules regulating the Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of, the a and with zeal in advocacy upon the clients behalf. It is more than obvious that Counsel's performance in representation of Defendant fell woefully short of that level of commitment and dedication prescribed by law and/or rule. | Counsels failure to act on the Defendant's behalf in preparing for and seeking a full and complete defense for the Defendant constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the 6" and 14" Amendments to the United 1 It should be noted tht the Florida Department of Corrections does not provide specialized treatment for any mental health issue other than gender dysphoria, |States Constitution as well as Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) The Defendant should be permitted to withdraw her plea and this case should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. GROUND TWO: COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO | INVESTIGATE AND PRESENT DEFENDANT'S MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY AS ‘MITIGATION DURING THE PENALTY PHASE. | Defendant claims that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate, develop, and present an alternative mens rea at the time of the crime to show that the Defendant's mental health illness was provoking her to actjrather than a criminal mentality or state of mind. At the very least, the showing of these facts would have been mitigation during the penalty phase impacting the Defendant's sentence with justification for a lesser sentence. : Counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make b reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. An attorney's obligation to investigate and prepare for trial and/or the penalty portion cannot be overstated because these are integral parts of any case. Ina failure to investigate claim, a court must examine not only counsel's alleged failure to investigate and present possibly mitigating evidence, but the roe for doing so. The Defendant states that the Counsel's ineffectiveness deprived her of a reliable penalty phase proceeding. She further states that Counsel's “strategic decisions” are reasonable only if based on information resulting from a reasonable investigation conducted by Counsel. An attorney has a strict duty to conduct a reasonable investigation. However, Defendant contends that Counsel did not conduct even a rudimentary investigation into the impact her mehtal health history would have on her mens rea at the time of the crime, regardless of the fact that a mental health evaluation had been performed onDefendant with conclusive results of trauma and mental health illnesses. Defendant also made Counsel aware of her mental health history particulars, and requested Counsel investigate. Had Counsel conducted a proper investigation, it would have positively impacted the penalty phase and may have resulted in a lesser sentence for the Defendant. | Counsel failed to do her due diligence and properly investigate all elements of the instant case in light of the charges against Defendant. She therefore failed to perform her duties as prescribed by rule/law. Presenting this evidence may have changed the entire outcome of the proceedings. However, at the very least, failing to present this evidence prejudice the integrity of the proceeding a very fundamental level. Moreover, the Rules regulating the Florida Bar issue a directive that an attorney's representation will rise to|a level of commitment and dedication to their client's best interest. Counsel was blatantly obvious in her failure to comply with this Rule. Rules regulating the Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence | a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever) lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the clients behalf. Counsel's performance fell woefully short of that guaranteed the Defendant when she could have presented evidence warranting a lesser sentencejhad she conducted even a cursory investigation into the impact of Defendant's mental health illnesses had on her state of mind at the time of the crime. | | As the records in this case fail to conclusively refute Defendant's claim, this matter should be remanded for further proceedings and an evidentiaryhearing held as Counsel's ineffectiveness deprived the Defendant of reliable representation and compromised the integrity of due process as a whole and penalty phase proceeding in particular. Where a facially sufficient Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 is not conclusively refuted by the record, an evidentiary is required. See Garcia v. State, 907 SO. 2d 607 (3DCA 2005). Under rule 3.850, a Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively shows the Defendant is not entitled to relief. See Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 1986). The Defendant states that Counsel's representation fell below the standard guaranteed by the 6" and 14" amendments of the Us. Constitution, as well as_Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and should be remanded for further proceedings and an evidentiary hearing scheduled. | GROUND THREE | COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO SEEK A HEARING FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS INCOMPETENT TO PROCEED. | | | Counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel when she failed to seek a competency hearing after learning of Defendant's mental health history and the extent of her psychological disorder known as Pseudocyesis. | Pseudocyesis is a disorder in which a woman has the physical signs of | prégnancy, including but not limited to, morning sickness, amenorrhea, breast enlargement, and abdominal swelling. Women with this particular disotder actually believe that they are pregnant although there is no pregnancy. While uncommon, Pseudocyesis is very real and Counsel was aware of Defendant's struggle with all such symptoms. Pursuant to Florida Rules of Court, Rule 3.210, ‘If at any material|stage of a criminal proceeding, the court of its own motion, or a motion of ee for the 8| defendant or for the state, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant's mental condition, which Shall be held no later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the motion, and may order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3 experts, as|needed prior to the date of the hearing. | | Counsel should have seen the signs in Ms. Williams as she displayed severe depression, and anxiety. She had just lost her child and the truth of her deceit to birth/gain said child was now starkly in the light for all to see. Women with this type of psychological disorder often trick themselves into believing the lie and Ms. Williams was no exception. She was also dealing with her family's astonishment in discovering that this child that had been raised and reared in this home was not who everyone believed and did not belong to them as a minor. Having this in depth knowledge of Defendant's unsteady mental state and being able to deduce the impact of her past trauma in concert to her already fluctuating psychosis, Counsel should have proceeded in moving for a | competency hearing pursuant tothe rule indicated above. Counsel's representation failed to rise to a level of commitment and dedication to Defendant's best interest. Rules regulating the Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the clients behalf. | Counsels failure to proceed to a competency hearing and argue for the defendant that she was incompetent and needed to receive treatment wasineffective assistance of counsel. ; Counsel had a duty to vigorously protect her clients rights and ensure that she was completely competent to enter a plea to such serious charges. If there was even a scintilla of evidence that the defendant was incompetent to proceed-- and there was actually much more than a scintilla—then counsel hada duty to ensure that the hearing called for in Fla. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.210 (b) occurred and that counsel argued before the court that the defendant should be declared incompetent and that she should receive the necessary treatment to restore her to competency prior to any/all court hearings and/or decisions regarding trial versus plea. Instead, counsel simply urged her to accept a plea to these serious charges in exchange for a sentence for an 18 year term of imprisonment. Nor did Counsel advise Defendant to accept the State's bffer ofa lesser sentence. Counsel advised Defendant instead to open plea to the Judge. Counsel's duty was to her client. In the position she was in, she should have done everything necessary to ensure that the defendant was competent to make such a serious decision. | Counsel's ineffective assistance resulted in the defendants plea being entered while she was incompetent and, as such, it was involuntary. i The defendant should be permitted to withdraw her plea in this case, be re-evaluated for competency and proceed as needed after the issue of competency is established. An evidentiary hearing should be held on this grqund for the court to take testimony and evidence, with counsel appointed to represent the defendant. |GROUND FOUR: COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PROPERLY PREPARE A DEFENSE LEAVING DEFENDANT NO OPTION BUT TO TAKE PLEA, | Defendant contends that her attorney's erroneous advice caused ter to enter an open guilty plea involuntarily as she did not have the correct information needed in order to make an informed decision. In response to Defendant's query as to whether she should accept the proffered plea, Counsel advised her against it, even though it would have resulted in a much lesser sentence for Defendant. Instead, Counsel advised Defendant to enter 4 open plea to the Judge resulting in a much lengthier sentence for Defendant. | Naturally, Defendant relied on Counsel because she thought Counsel had her best interest in mind and heart, she didn't understand what was happening. Defendant has reasonable intelligence and is a competent individual, however, combined with the fact that she is unlearned and unskilled in the area of law in concert with suffering from mental health issues and duress, she completely relied on her attorney's advice. She believed in and trusted her attorney to act in her best interest, yet she completely misrepresented the length of sentence the Defendant would receive as a result of an open plea. Counsel told Defendant that the Judge was from “family Court” and intimated that this may result in sympathy for Defendant's plight. Counsel also intimated that Defendant would get a lesser sentence than that offered by the State. Counsel could not have known the length of sentence the Judge would ultimately issue, yet she assured the Defendant that she would receive less than offered|by the State if she entered an open plea to the Judge. She did as her Attomey advised and entered into an open plea to the Judge. In exchange for that trust, she received an eighteen (18) year sentence in the Department of Corrections,rather than the 8 to 10 that the State was offering. | Reasonable communication between the lawyer and the client is | negessary for the client to effectively participate in the representation. Counsel told the Defendant that she would receive a lesser sentence if she open pled to the, Judge, she did so and received an eighteen (18) year sentence. Counsel's advice to Defendant stated as a factual basis for her acceptance of entering into CO ———_= = Oath of Admission required of every member of the Florida Bar. That oath includes an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida.” Counsel deliberately violated said bath in her representation of Defendant where her performance fell well below that of the accepted standard. Rules regulating the Florida Bar Rule 4-1.4 Communication (b) Duty to Explain Matters to Client. Alawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the | representation. Defendant should have had sufficient information to participate intelligently to the extent that she was willing and able to do so. The guiding principle according to the Rule is that the lawyer should fulfill reasonable client | expectations for information consistent with the duty to act on the client's best intgrests and the client's overall requirements as to the character of representation. The plea process is a critical stage of the criminal procpedin. Counsel had an obligation to handle the instant case with thorough preparation, which includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the case, including but not limited to, plea agreements and the plea process as awhole. Fla, R. Crim. P. 3.171 Responsibilities of Defense Counsel | | (2) Defense Counsel shall advise defendant of: | (A) all plea offers; and | | (B) all pertinent matters bearing on the choice of which plea to enter and the particulars attendant upon each plea and the likely results thereof, as well as any possible alternatives that may be open to the defendant. Moreover, the Rules regulating the Florida Bar issue a directive that an | attorney's representation will rise to the standard acceptable and in the best intérest of their client. Rules regulating the Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence i a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the clients behalf. | | It is more than obvious that Counsel's performance in representation of | Defendant fell woefully short of that level of commitment and dedication prescribed by law and/or rule. The direct and distinctive consequences of Counsel's advice, and|by extension, Defendant's plea, resulted in a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the Defendant's punishment. She was : - : ee informed of the maximum sentence she was facing, however, Counsel's advice an then her later statements of assurance that Defendant would receive a lesser sentence if she open pled to the Judge led the Defendant to believe that it was in her best interest to plead out in order to receive that lesser sentence. This was complete and total misrepresentation by Counsel and ultimatelyresulted in a miscarriage of Justice for the Defendant. | The Defendant contends that Counsel's misadvice concerning een of Sentence she would receive on an open plea constitutes ineffective | asdistance of Counsel. Defendant admitted to the taking the baby and a certain level of deceit on the totality of charges against her, although she professed not to recall or understand why she committed these acts, but she entered into an open plea based solely on her attorney's erroneous advice. Counsel claimed to have consulted with Defendant regarding the plea process, however, the transcript of the plea hearing does not reveal the content of any communications between defense Counsel and Defendant. These conversations would have taken place during attorney/client privileged conversations, which did not take Place. In fact, nothing in the record refutes the Defendant's allegation that Counsel told her that she would receive a much lesser sentence if she entered into an open plea before the Judge. The trial court is required to either conclusively refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing in the instant cause. See Bailey v. State, 93 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Jones v. Siete 42 So. 3d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). | Further, when the circuit court fails to hold an evidentiary hearing, this court and the circuit court must accept the motion's factual allegations as true unless the record refutes them. McKinnon v. State, 221 So. 3d 1239, 1240 (Fla. sth DCA 2017). An evidentiary hearing is the general rule rather than the exception Floyd v. State, 202 So. 3d 137, 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). The Defendant's attorney advised her to enter into an open plea and that she would receive a lesser sentence, she received an eighteen (18) year prison sentence. | Defendant was prejudiced by Counsel's misrepresentation and erroneous advice during the plea process because had Counsel not told the Defendant that she would receive a lesser sentence for her open plea, she would not haveentered into the plea at all. Had Counsel not misadvised Defendant with the level of trust she afforded her, Defendant would not be serving an (18) year prison sentence. She would be serving a lesser sentence as offered by the State and would very possibly have been home with her family by now. | In light of that fact, it is impossible not to conclude that Counsel's misrepresentation had a direct impact on the Defendant's length of sentence and on her life as a whole , as well as that of her family | The United States Supreme Court held that: “ If a plea bargain has been offered, a defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to accept it’. Laffler v Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 168; 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012). The defendant submits that effective assistance includes not only advising the defendant what they should do, but in ensuring that the defendant has all available information and facts necessary to make a decision for herself on what course she should take. Counsel in the instant case deprived the defendant of a valid defense and then compounded it with his play on defendant's trust and lack of understanding of the totality of circumstances surrounding the plea process leaving her totally without any information that would allow her to make an informed decision on the best course for her to take. The Defendant, not the attorney, is the captain of the ship. Although that attorney can make some tactical decisions, the ultimate choices to which direction to sail is left up to the defendant. The question is not whether the route taken was correct; rather, the question is whether the defendant approved of the course. See: Nixon v Singletary, 758 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2000). However, Defendant cannot approve of any course of action without Counsel making all relevant information available and properly advising Defendant as rule/law mandates and acting with her best 15interest at heart. The Defendant is ultimately left “approving” of . representation and advice, which is strictly done through the relationship between the attorney and the Defendant and the level of trust developed. The Defendant states that Counsel's representation fell below the standard | guaranteed by the 6" and 14" amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as_ Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | The Florida Supreme Court has stated that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on an allegation that counsel failed to properly advise the defendant about a plea offer may arise from counsel's failure to communicate a plea offer or counsel's misinforming the defendant concerning the penalty faced. See Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963, 967 (Fla. 1999). Defendant's plea Should be rendered involuntary and an evidentiary hearing held in the instant case. In the alternative and at the very least, a limited hearing should be held to | determine whether an adversarial relationship was present between Counsel and Defendant due to Counsel's misadvice and misrepresentation leading Defendant to the entry of the plea. When a defendant files a pro se motion to withdraw plea alleging that his attorney misadvised him and/or misrepresented the terms of the plea, an adversarial relationship exists and the trial court should not strike the pleading as a nullity. Rather, the trial court should hold a limited hegring at which the defendant, defense counsel, and the State are present. If it appears to the trial court that an adversarial relationship between counsel and the defendant has arisen and the defendant's allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record, the court should hold an evidentiary hearing on the Post Conviction Motion and appoint conflict free counsel to represent Defendant in determining ineffective assistance of Counsel and allow Defendant to withdraw het plea in the instant case. This case should be remanded and an evidentiary hearing scheduled with competent representation appointed Defendant. ! 16GROUND FIVE: | COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR CHANGE OF VENUE TO ENSURE FAIR TRIAL The Defendant contends that Counsel was ineffective for failing tolmove fora change of venue to ensure fairness. While a high profile case does not, in and of itself, warrant a change of venue, the Defendant asserts that an inability to seat an impartial jury does. The notoriety of Defendant's case was extremely far reaching and highly publicized. The facts of her case as known to the media was on constant replay not only in the local newspapers, but also on ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. Mr. Burke who owns four (4) television stations in Jacksonville subpoenaed her in an attempt to obtain her discovery and to have her sign a release for them claiming that it was their 1* amendment right. A Lifetime movie was released titled “Stolen by my Mother; The Kamiyah Mobley Story’. While this release was post conviction/sentencing, the movie replays any time Ms, Williams’ name comes up. The news station even went so far as to scan the Defendant's legal motions and display them publicly, not only on television but also on the internet. Counsel was without question ineffective for failing to move for a dhange of Yenue when it was more than evident that an impartial jury could not have been seated. The record is replete with evidence showing that the trial court would have, or at least should have, granted a motion for change of venue if defense counsel had presented such a motion to the court. The test for determining whether to grant a change of venue is whether the inhabitants of a community are so infected by knowledge of the incident and accompanying prejudice, bias, and preconceived opinions that jurors could not possibly put these matters out of their minds and try the case solely on the evidencepresented in the courtroom. See Ellerbee v. State, 232 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 2017). There is absolutely and obviously no way that an impartial jury could have been selected in Duval County, Florida. However, Defendant asked Counsel to move fora change of venue, and when she did not, Defendant believed she was left with no choice but to enter into a plea. | GROUND SIX: THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF COUNSEL AND COURT ERROR DEEMS THE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FUNDAMENTALLY) UNFAIR AND DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO DUE! PROCESS OF LAW The Defendant has asserted six (6) grounds in which Counsel i fallen short of his constitutional duty to effectively represent the Defendant. The errors had a cumulative effect that rendered the Defendant's representation fundamentally unfair. Prejudice results from the cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies that which the cumulative affect of the above errors deprived the Defendant of her due process rights. Had Counsel performed any of these errors alone or cumulatively, the outcome of the Defendant's case would have greatly differed. However, the totality of Counsel's failures and negligence affected the outcome of the Defendant's entire case and resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice, requiring this case be remanded for further proceedings and an evidentiary hearing scheduled. The Defendant had conclusively shown ineffective of Counsel and the Prejudice to herself/her case that resulted. Defendant deserves just relief in this cause and an evidentiary hearing should rightfully be scheduled with Court appointed counsel to represent Defendant. 1817. If any of the grounds listed in 16 one, two or three were not previously presented on your direct appeal, state briefly what grounds were not so| presented and give your reasons they were not so presented: The above grounds were not presented in direct appeal and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct review. They are properly presented in a Motion for Post Conviction Relief. 18. Do you have any petition, application, motion, appeal, etc., now pending in | any court, either state or federal, as to the judgment under attack? No | 19, If your answer to number 18 was “yes”, give the following information: ' (a) Name of court: Not Applicable. | (b) Nature of the proceeding: Not Applicable. (c)Grounds raised: : Not Applicable. (d) Status of the proceedings: : Not Applicable. | | 20, Give the name and address, if known, of each attomey who represented you in the following stages of the judgment attacked herein: (a) At the preliminary hearing: | (b) At arraignment and plea: (c)At trial: Not Applicable. | (d) At sentencing: Diane Johnson, Esq. | (e) On appeal: Steven L. Seliger, A.P.D. (f) In any post conviction proceeding: Not Applicable. 19WHEREFORE, Movant request that the Court grant all relief to which the movant may be entitled, including but not limited to, an evidentiary hearing be granted for the Defendant to present evidence in support of her motion, that conflict free Counsel be appointed to represent her at said evidentiary hearing, and that Defendant be allowed to withdraw her plea and any further relief that the Court deem just and proper. | | Respectfully Submitted, Gloria B. Williams DC# J61414 | | Lowell Correctional Institution-Work Camp 11120 NW Gainesville Road Ocala, Florida 34482 UNNOTARIZED OATH OF DEFENDANT Under penalties of perjury, | declare that | can understand English} Ihave read the entire motion or it has been read to me and | understand it's cantent; this motion is filed in good faith and with reasonable belief that it is timely filed, has potential merit, and does not duplicate previous motions that have been disposed of by the court; and the facts contained in the motion are true and cofrect. | Dated: /2.-/-og3 1 Wh Mh Gloria'B. Willams DOH J6Ta14 PROVI Lowell Correctional Main Unit on: DEC 012023 | ex GB) trmaa 20CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i | HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was furnished to: Duval County Clerk of Court, 501 West Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 and The Office of the State Attorney, Duval County, 311 West Monroe Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 for filing by first class U.S. Mail after | placed the same in the hand(s) of a prison official on this_7_-day of December 2023 with adequate prepaid postage affixed to each envelope for provessing through approved outgoing prison legal mail channels. Gloria B. Williams DC# J61414 Lowell Correctional Institution-Work Camp 11120 NW Gainesville Road Ocala, Florida 34482 | prowoeoTo: | Lovet corsa aa Unt on DEC 01 2023 | mG _emains 21