JAMES DAVID RAULERSON, 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 held that claims previously raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal are precluded from consideration in a third motion for post-conviction relief.
[1] Claims raised in a motion for post-conviction relief that were or could have been raised on direct appeal are precluded from consideration.
[2] Knowledge of a case by a prospective juror, standing alone, is insufficient to warrant relief if it would not influence the juror's verdict.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, with subsequent appeals and post-conviction relief attempts. Appellant filed a …
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 Sequestration Order cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
We have before us an appeal from the denial of appellant's third motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. In August of 1975, appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The facts underlying appellant’s conviction are set out in Raulerson v. State, 358 So. 2d 826 (Fla.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 959, 99 S.Ct. 364, 58 L.Ed.2d 352 (1978), where we affirmed the conviction and sentence to death. Appellant then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That court found that appellant had been denied the opportunity to rebut the contents of his presentence report in violation of Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and ordered a new sentencing hearing. Raulerson v. Wainwright, 508 F.Supp. 381, 383-85 (M.D.Fla.1980). Following a second sentencing hearing, appellant was again sentenced to death. This Court consolidated the appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief and reimposition of the death penalty and affirmed both judgments. Raulerson v. State, 420 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3572, 77 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1983).
On August 22, 1983, appellant filed a second motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, but the trial court denied the motion. This Court again affirmed. Raulerson v. State, 437 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1983).
On September 2, 1983, appellant filed a second habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Ultimately, the district court denied the writ and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Rau-lerson v. Wainwright, 732 F. 2d 803 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 366, 83 L.Ed.2d 302 (1984).
Appellant filed a third motion for post-conviction relief on January 17, 1985. The trial court denied the motion, without an evidentiary hearing; on January 18, 1985.
Appellant’s 3.850 motion raises six claims for relief: 1) pretrial publicity and community bias; 2) concealment of material facts on voir dire; 3) breaches of sequestration order; 4) the unguided use of unadjudieated crimes evidence; 5) other crimes evidence was obtained and used in an unconstitutional manner; 6) ineffective assistance of counsel. All but appellant’s sixth contention were or could have been raised on direct appeal and thus are precluded from our consideration. Demps v. State, 416 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla.1982); Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673, 675 (Fla.1980); Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423-24 (Fla.1980). Moreover, as to appellant’s second contention, we agree with the findings of the trial court in its order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief:
Furthermore, the Defendant has had the benefit of two prior post conviction proceedings. In neither proceeding was this ground raised. There is no factual basis set forth in the motion that this ground was not available to the Defendant at these three prior stages of this case. The Defendant has failed to show that he is entitled to relief on this ground. Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1980). Even assuming that this ground is properly before the Court, the Defendant is not entitled to relief. Questions of whether prospective jurors had heard about the case is not, standing alone, sufficiently material. The real issue is whether a juror has knowledge about the case which would influence the juror in returning a verdict. The fact that juror Weston (sic) and juror Allen may have had knowledge about the case, standing alone, is an insufficient basis to warrant this Court to grant the relief sought by the Defendant.
Appellant’s sixth and final contention in support of his motion is that of ineffective assistance of counsel. The issue has been thoroughly reviewed by this Court in two prior post-conviction proceedings, Raulerson v. State, 420 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3572, 77 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1983); Raulerson v. State, 437 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1983), and has been rejected by all other reviewing courts as well. We adhere to our prior judgments and find appellant’s claim to be without merit.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s third 3.850 motion is hereby affirmed.
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
-
Wilson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 474 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1985)…ore the trial court in seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850. The trial court struck five of these issues and parts of two others as improperly urged because they could have been raised on direct appeal. This was entirely proper. Raulerson v. State, 462 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1985). The trial court then ruled that those issues not dismissed did not demonstrate appellant’s entitlement to relief, citing the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052…
-
Buford v. State, 492 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1986)…bitrary and discriminatory manner; and (8) whether the jury override was a violation of due process. Issues 4, 5, 6 and 8 either were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are therefore precluded from collateral review. Raulerson v. State, 462 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1985); Smith v. State, 457 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1984). Appellant claims that the death sentence in this case is contrary to Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), in which the United States Supreme Court held that…
-
Lightbourne v. State, 471 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1985)…; and (5) whether appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Issues 2, 3 and 4 either were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are therefore foreclosed in this proceeding for collateral review. Raulerson v. State, 462 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1985); Jones v. State, 446 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1984). Appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing is without merit. The law is clear that when the motion and record conclusively demonstrate that…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977)
- Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1980)
- Raulerson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803 (11th Cir. 1984)
- McNair v. United States, 439 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1978)
- Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1980)
- Bennie E. Demps v. State, 416 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1982)
- Raulerson v. State, 358 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1978)
- Raulerson v. State, 420 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1982)
- Raulerson v. State, 437 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1983)
- Raulerson v. Wainwright, 508 F. Supp. 381 (M.D. Fla. 1980)