THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY, 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.
Theodore Bundy, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his murder convictions and death sentences. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, rejecting all four of Bundy's contentions regarding trial competency, ineffective assistance of counsel, evidence preservation, and the constitutionality of Florida's capital punishment system.
The Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding that: (1) a proper competency hearing was held; (2) no deficiency in trial counsel's performance was demonstrated; (3) the evidence preservation claim was known at trial and could have been raised earlier; and (4) the Eighth Amendment arbitrariness claim has been repeatedly rejected.
[1] A defendant may not be tried if they are not competent to stand trial, and this standard applies to post-conviction proceedings.
[2] A trial court's determination of a defendant's competency, supported by competent, substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“This Court's previous affirmance of appellant's convictions and sentences determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove guilt, that all of appellant's contentions made there regarding the convictions and sentences were without merit, and that the sentences of death were proper under the law.”
Establishes that prior appellate review had already addressed and rejected the sufficiency of evidence and the validity of the sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBundy was convicted of two first-degree murders committed in Tallahassee in January 1978 and sentenced to death. His convictions and sentences were pr…
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 Motion For Stay Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Chief Justice.
Theodore Robert Bundy appeals the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence. Bundy is a state prisoner under sentence of death and a warrant ordering that the sentence be carried out.* This Court’s previous affirmance of appellant’s convictions and sentences determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove guilt, that all of appellant’s contentions made there regarding the convictions and sentences were without merit, and that the sentences of death were proper under the law. Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330, 336, 349, 350 (Fla.1984). None of these determinations are now subject to being re-litigated. The burden is on the appellant to establish that he is entitled to have the judgments or sentences set aside. We find that he has not carried that burden. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief.
Appellant’s motion presents four contentions: (1) that the trial court erred by failure to conduct a full and fair inquiry into appellant’s competency to stand trial; (2) that appellant was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel; (3) that the state failed to properly preserve evidence that could possibly have been exculpatory; (4) that imposition of the death penalty in this case violates the eighth amendment on the ground that application of capital punishment in Florida is arbitrary.
Appellant’s first contention is without merit because in fact there was a proper competency hearing. We reject the second contention because appellant has failed to show any deficiency of performance on the part of his trial counsel. The third contention is one that was known to the defendant at trial and therefore could have been raised at trial and on appeal but cannot be considered now. The fourth contention is one that has been rejected many times by this Court.
The trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate is affirmed. The motion for stay of execution is denied.
It is so ordered.
overton, McDonald, ehrlich and SHAW, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., dissents with an opinion.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
*
Bundy was convicted of two first-degree murders that were committed in Tallahassee in January, 1978. His convictions and sentences of death were affirmed on appeal by this Court. Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1984). Bundy was also convicted and sentenced to death for a murder that occurred in Lake City in February, 1978. Conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court. Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1985). The current death warrant on Bundy indicates that the sentences for the Tallahassee murders are to be carried out.
BARKETT, Justice,
dissenting.
For the reasons expressed in my concurring opinion in Bundy v. State, 490 So. 2d 1257 (Fla.1986), and because I do not feel the trial court’s order comports with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850,1 respectfully dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bundy v. State, 497 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1986)
-
Emory W. McGOWAN v. State, 586 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ate, 489 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1986) (prosecutorial statements which were not objected to at trial and were therefore not raised on direct appeal are barred from being raised on a motion for post-conviction relief unless fundamental error); Bundy v. State, 490 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1986) (matter known to defendant at trial, which therefore could have been raised at trial and on appeal, cannot be raised in motion for post-conviction relief). In this case, McGowan did not take a direct appeal. Had he done so, based on this…
-
Brown v. State, 502 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…Judge. The order denying the petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is affirmed, because this second petition either alleges matters which were or could have been raised on appeal, Bundy v. State, 490 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1986), Rogers v. State, 467 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) or which were previously raised in a 3.850 motion and denied. See Christopher v. State, 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1986). But for the failure of the trial court to include in its order the la…
Authorities Cited
- Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1985)
- Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1984)
- Bundy v. State, 490 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1986)