JESSIE J. JENKINS, 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.
Jenkins appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief following his conviction on drug and firearm charges. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that most grounds were either previously raised on direct appeal or lacked merit.
The court affirmed the denial of the post-conviction relief motion. Grounds 3, 4, and 6 were properly denied because they were previously raised on direct appeal. Ground 5 lacked merit. Ground 2 failed to comply with Rule 3.850(f) procedural requirements. Ground 1 lacked merit because an extradition warrant does not constitute a waiver of the asylum state's jurisdiction.
[1] Issues raised on direct appeal are generally barred from post-conviction relief.
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief must state the facts relied upon in support of each ground for relief.
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“we affirm the denial of the motion as to Grounds 3, 4, and 6, as these were all issues which were raised on direct appeal”
Establishes that issues previously raised on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a Rule 3.850 motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJenkins was charged on April 14, 1982, with possession of cocaine and possession of a concealed firearm. He was tried without a jury on August 11, 198…
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 Per Curiam Affirmance cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
This is an appeal of the trial court’s denial, without hearing, of appellant/petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. We affirm.
The appellant in this case was originally charged, on April 14, 1982, with possession of cocaine and possession of a concealed firearm. After a non-jury trial on August 11, 1983 he was found guilty on both counts and was sentenced to consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment. Appellant’s direct appeal resulted in an affirmance by this court.
He then filed the instant motion for post-conviction relief, raising the following six grounds: (1) that the State of Florida waived its jurisdiction to hold and try appellant when the Governor of Florida signed a warrant, on July 11, 1983, for his extradition to a sister state; (2) that appellant was denied the right to select counsel of his choice when he was held without bail for a non-capital offense; (3) that the trial court failed to conduct a Richardson hearing and erroneously denied appellant’s renewed motion to suppress; (4) that Rule 3.191(g), Fla.R.Crim.P. is unconstitutional in part; (5) that per curiam affirmance opinions of the District Court constitute violations of equal protection; and (6) that the trial court imposed the maximum allowable sentence without benefit of a presen-tence investigation, where the State Attorney made false and misleading statements concerning petitioner’s past criminal record. The trial court denied appellant’s motion without a hearing, on November 13, 1984, and denied a motion for rehearing approximately two weeks later. First, we affirm the denial of the motion as to Grounds 3, 4, and 6, as these were all issues which were raised on direct appeal. Rule 3.850; Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388 (Fla.1984). Thus, only Grounds 1, 2, and 5 were properly considered by the trial court. Of those, Ground 5 is without merit. Likewise, Ground 2 does not substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 3.850(f), as it fails to contain a state ment of the facts relied on in support of the ground. Majors v. State, 451 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Finally, the issue raised in Ground 1 is also without merit. Although there are apparently no Florida cases addressing this issue, the rule in most jurisdictions is that the issuance of an extradition warrant does not constitute a waiver of the asylum state’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Cole v. Iowa, 374 N.W. 2d 901 (Iowa 1985).
Therefore, the trial court’s denial of appellant’s 3.850 motion is AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Basulto Vargas v. Junior, 254 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…warrant of the Governor by the expiration of the time specified in the warrant or bond, a judge may discharge the accused or may recommit him or her for a further period not to exceed 60 days . . . .” Therefore, after a total of 90 days, State, 479 So. 2d 864, 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We note that this is the rule in Florida as well, consistent with section 941.19: If a criminal prosecution has been instituted against such person under the laws of this state and is still pending, the Governor, in his…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1984)
- Majors v. State, 451 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Fuller Enters. v. Stan Michaels and Ida Michaels, 451 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)