CURTIS L. HAMPTON, 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 the trial court erred in summarily denying the appellant's second motion for post-conviction relief because it raised new issues and the prior motion was not denied on its merits.
[1] A second or successive motion for post-conviction relief may be dismissed if it fails to allege new or different grounds and the prior determination was made on the merit…
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief must be reversed and remanded if the record does not conclusively show the movant is entitled to no…
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 filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which the trial court summarily denied, stating the grounds were raised in a prior motion. This 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 Competency Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The appellant in this case, Curtis L. Hampton, filed a motion for post-conviction relief on December 12, 1985, raising four grounds: (1) that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to order a competency hearing; (8) that his conviction was obtained by use of a coerced confession; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel through (a) failure to raise voluntary intoxication defense, (b) failure to explain to defendant the nature of a nolo contendere plea, (c) failure to inform defendant that his constitutional rights had been violated, and (d) failure to move the court for a competency hearing. The trial court summarily denied the motion, stating that appellant had raised the same grounds in a previous motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court in 1981. Appellant appealed the denial of the 1985 motion to this court, alleging that he did not recall filing the previous motion.
We released an opinion on October 14, 1986 noting that, according to Rule 3.850, a second or successive motion for post-conviction relief may be dismissed if the trial court finds that it fails to allege any new or different grounds and if the prior determination was made on the merits. Since we were unable to determine either of these points from the record, we reversed and remanded for the trial court to attach the portion of the record and files conclusively showing appellant to be entitled to no relief. Hampton v. State, 495 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
The trial court has responded to our opinion by providing us with a copy of the previous motion and of the order denying that motion. Since it is apparent both that the 1985 motion contains issues which were not raised in the previous motion, and that the previous motion was not denied on its merits, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s 1985 motion for post-conviction relief and remand for further proceedings consistent with Rule 3.850.
SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ranaldson v. State, 672 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ge of the rule quoted above that a successive motion raising the same grounds for relief can only be denied as an abuse of process if the prior determination was on the merits. See Ames v. State, 518 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Hampton v. State, 504 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Roth v. State, 479 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The supreme court has also held that the rule 3.850(f) restriction against successive motions on the same grounds is applied “only when the grounds raised were previous…
-
Ames v. State, 518 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the movant or his attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure governed by these rules. In Hampton v. State, 504 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), this court held, in accord with the plain language of the rule quoted above, that a successive motion raising the same grounds for relief can only be denied as an abuse of process if the prior determination was on the merits. Se…
-
Rogers v. State, 510 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…he order a copy of that portion of the record which conclusively shows the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) to conduct further proceedings in accordance with Rule 3.850. Havis v. State, 506 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hampton v. State, 504 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gust v. State, 504 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Neither course was followed in this case. The order clearly states that the trial court consulted the official court file to…
Authorities Cited
- Hampton v. State, 495 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)