EDDIE W. CRUMP, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the denial of Crump's Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief because his alleged errors were either procedurally barred as issues that could have been raised on direct appeal or legally insufficient under the ineffective assistance of counsel standard.
A Rule 3.850 motion alleging errors that could have been raised on direct appeal is procedurally barred, and an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that is legally insufficient does not warrant relief.
[1] Allegations of error in a post-conviction Rule 3.850 motion that could have been raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from collateral review.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie W. Crump was convicted of burglary and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. His direct appeal conviction was affirmed, and he subsequently f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Collateral Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted appellant, Eddie W. Crump, of burglary; and he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. After this court affirmed Crump’s conviction in Crump v. State, No. 78-2066 (Fla.4th DCA May 14, 1980), he filed a pro se motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, attaching pertinent parts of the record or files, or specifically delineating the issues for this court.1 Crump appeals.
In his motion Crump alleged fifteen errors and all but one “were or could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore are foreclosed in this proceeding for collateral review. Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1980); Henry v. State, 377 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1979); Sullivan v. State, 372 So. 2d 938 (Fla.1979).” Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673, 675 (Fla.1980). Although the remaining allegation, ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, is subject to our review,2 it is legally insufficient under Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981). Since we affirm on matters of law, there is no need to remand for the attachments of files or records as required by Rule 3.850. Edwards v. State, 364 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. . See Committee Note, 34 Fla.Stat.Ann. 133 (Supp.1982).
. Jones v. State, 384 So. 2d 736, 737 (Fla.4th DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comer v. State, 426 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Crump v. State, 412 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). ANSTEAD, HERSEY and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Cleveland Arnold v. State, 436 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Crump v. State, 412 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). LETTS, HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1980)
- Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1980)
- Sullivan v. State, 372 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1979)
- Jones v. State, 384 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Henry v. State, 377 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1979)
- Edwards v. State, 364 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)