JODIE LEON HOEWISCHER, 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 issues previously raised and rejected on direct appeal, or issues not cognizable in collateral attack, cannot be raised in a motion for postconviction relief.
Hoewischer was convicted of armed robbery and appealed. He later filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging the trial court erred in limiting c…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Hoewischer appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
On 1 November 1979, Hoewischer was convicted of armed robbery. He appealed to this court and his conviction was affirmed without opinion in Hoewischer v. State, 394 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The instant motion was filed on 12 January 1985, alleging that the trial court erred in limiting closing argument at trial to 15 minutes and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove use of a weapon during the robbery.
The trial court correctly denied the motion. The argument with regard to the length of the closing argument was made and rejected on direct appeal. Hoew-ischer is therefore foreclosed from raising it in a motion for postconviction relief. Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388 (Fla.1984). Sufficiency of the evidence is not an issue cognizable through collateral attack. Rasheed v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Spencer v. State, 389 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 561 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…nder oath as required by Rule 3.850 and also fails to include the information required by Rule 3.850(b), (c) and (d). [*1350] We therefore affirm, but without prejudice to the filing of a sworn motion in conformance with the Rule. See Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Williams I”). Consistent with our earlier opinion, the appellant filed another motion which sought to cure the technical deficiencies found to exist in Williams I. The tria…
-
Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…under oath as required by Rule 3.850 and also fails to include the information required by Rule 3.850(b), (c) and (d). We therefore affirm, but without prejudice to the filing of a sworn motion in conformance with the [*10] Rule. See Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). AFFIRMED. SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.…
-
Deese v. State, 530 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…tions are true and correct. See Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1985) (motion not under oath as required by rule 3.850 was properly denied). Since the motion is facially insufficient, no relief could be granted under rule 3.850. Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also Little v. State, 512 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We cannot determine whether the motion is sufficient to state grounds for relief under rule 3.800. Some of the grounds alleged to have been cited by the trial court…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1984)
- Lucion Spencer v. State, 389 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Faheem Saleem Rasheed v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Chaplin v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)