JIMMY LEE SMITH, 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.
Jimmy Lee Smith appealed the dismissal of his second post-conviction relief petition challenging his death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that successive post-conviction motions raising issues that could have been raised on direct appeal constitute an abuse of the post-conviction process.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the successive post-conviction petition, finding it was an abuse of process because all six points raised were issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are thus foreclosed from consideration under post-conviction relief. The Brady claim was rejected because Smith and his trial counsel had peculiar knowledge of the juvenile facility confinement, the claim could have been raised at trial or direct appeal, and the evidence was available to Smith and his counsel regarding his own life story.
[1] A successive petition for post-conviction relief may be dismissed as an abuse of the post-conviction process.
[2] Issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal are generally foreclosed from consideration in post-conviction relief proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“All of the six points raised by Smith are issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are thus foreclosed from consideration under post-conviction relief.”
Establishes the court's primary holding that successive post-conviction petitions raising issues cognizable on direct appeal are barred
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was previously convicted and sentenced to death, with that conviction affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court in 1981. Smith filed a first petitio…
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 Successive Petitions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on appeal from a dismissal with prejudice of Smith’s second petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We also have before us a motion for stay of execution. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We previously affirmed the imposition of the death penalty in Smith v. State, 407 So. 2d 894 (Fla.1981), cert. denied 456 U.S. 984, 102 S.Ct. 2260, 72 L.Ed.2d 864 (1982), and the denial of Smith’s first petition for post-conviction relief in Smith v. State, 445 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1983), cert. denied — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 2671, 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984) (Smith II).
Smith also joined 122 others seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional sentences of death, which claim was denied by Brown v. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1000, 102 S.Ct. 542, 70 L.Ed.2d 407 (1981).
Smith presents six points in his second post-conviction petition. The trial court dismissed the petition “on grounds that this successive 3.850 motion is an abuse of the post-conviction process.” We agree. All of the six points raised by Smith are issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are thus foreclosed from consideration under post-conviction relief. McRae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983).
Only two of Smith’s arguments merit comment. Smith urges that the trial court erred in ruling that successive post-conviction motions are, per se, an abuse of process. Smith has misread the trial court’s order which specifies that “this successive” (emphasis supplied) motion is an abuse of process. Smith also claims that certain psychiatric reports prepared on Smith when he was confined in a state juvenile facility were withheld by the state in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
The state disclaims any knowledge of the existence or content of these reports. Smith’s argument is unpersuasive. The fact that Smith had been confined in a juvenile facility was a fact peculiarly within the knowledge of Smith and his trial counsel. Any alleged withholding of psychiatric reports concerning that detention could have and should have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. This is particularly true in this instance in light of the fact that Smith’s psychological condition was addressed at trial and on direct appeal. Smith does not now claim ineffective assistance of counsel but we note that such claim was made and rejected in his first motion for post-conviction relief and that the first motion included a Brady claim that the state withheld statements made by his mother which would have added evidence in mitigation.
We rejected the Brady claim because of procedural irregularities but went on to note that the claim was without merit because “Brady requires that the defendant not be aware of the withheld evidence before or during trial” and the allegedly withheld evidence “was obviously available to the appellant and to the trial counsel insofar as it involves appellant’s own life story.” Smith II at 326. For the same reason we now reject Smith’s similar claim.
We find no error and affirm the order of the trial court dismissing Smith’s motion for post-conviction relief. The motion for stay of execution is denied.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
State v. Glenn, 558 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990)…ion. We answer in the negative. Generally, matters which could have or should have been raised on direct appeal may not be considered by a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388 (Fla.1984); McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983). Some changes in decisional law rendered subsequent to final appeal, however, may be raised under the rule. As this Court held in McCuiston v. State, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1988), any determinati…
-
Adams v. State, 484 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1986)…en raised in prior post-conviction motions under the Rule and have been decided adversely to the movant on their merits.” See also Songer v. State, 463 So. 2d 229 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2713, 86 L.Ed.2d 727 (1985); Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388 (Fla.1984). Both Florida’s rules and its caselaw, therefore, prohibit yet another review of these issues. Consideration of the remaining claims raised by appellant in this successive motion is similarly prohibited by Rule 3.850 and the caselaw. Hav…
-
Bass v. State, 478 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…same or similar relief. Although we disagree with the trial court’s reasoning, we affirm its denial of the second motion. Matters which could have been raised on direct appeal may not be considered by motion under Rule 3.850. E.g., Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388 (Fla.1984); McRae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983). Furthermore, Rule 3.850 has recently been amended, effective January 1,1985, to state: This rule does not authorize relief based upon grounds which could have or should have been raised at tri…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)
- Federated Publ'ns, Inc. v. Swedberg, 456 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1982)
- Jacks v. Duckworth, 456 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1982)
- Smith v. State, 445 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1983)
- Brown v. Wainwright, 454 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1981)
- Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Daley, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1981)
- Smith v. State, 407 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1981)