FRANKLIN D. PRINCE, 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.
Franklin Prince appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the motion facially insufficient despite agreeing that the trial court's factual assertion about a negotiated plea was incorrect.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the post-conviction motion, finding it facially insufficient due to lack of necessary specificity and failure to show prejudice. Although the trial court erroneously stated that Prince entered a negotiated plea, this error did not warrant reversal because the motion itself stated no valid ground for relief.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is legally insufficient if it lacks necessary specificity and a showing of prejudice.
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief must be facially sufficient to require relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 find that appellant's motion is facially insufficient to require relief, lacking necessary specificity and showing of prejudice.”
The court's primary holding that the post-conviction motion failed to meet the legal requirements for relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrince was convicted by jury on June 25, 1980, of three armed robberies, attempted murder, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felo…
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 Facial Insufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order by which his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 was denied. We affirm the order, finding the motion legally insufficient.
Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted on June 25, 1980, of three counts of armed robbery in violation of sections 812.-13 and 775.087, Florida Statutes, one count of attempted murder in violation of sections 782.04 and 777.04, Florida Statutes, one count of kidnapping in violation of sections 787.01 and 775.087, Florida Statutes, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of section 790.23, Florida Statutes. The court sentenced appellant to 390 years incarceration.
Appellant on October 2, 1985, filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on eight grounds, including counsel’s failure to subpoena witnesses, alleged concealment of the testimony of alibi witnesses, failure to object to testimony regarding appellant’s status as a convicted felon, failure to raise a defense in appellant’s motion for writ of habeas corpus, failure to object to hypnotically induced testimony, failure to object to the testimony of a fingerprint expert, failure to object to a court order permitting the sheriff to take appellant’s fingerprints by force, and failure to appeal a judgment and sentence for criminal contempt. Appellant on the same day filed a separate memorandum of law in support of his motion, in which he also argued additional matters. The trial court on June 24, 1986, denied the motion, stating that appellant entered into a negotiated plea and sentence in connection with these cases, and that the motion appeared to be legally insufficient to justify relief. Appellant on September 22,1986, filed a motion for rehearing, alleging that the trial court had misapprehended his case because he never entered into a negotiated plea and sentence in connection with these cases. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for rehearing.
We find that appellant’s motion is facially insufficient to require relief, lacking necessary specificity and showing of prejudice. Although appellant’s separate memorandum of law asserts additional facts which might have served as the basis for a facially valid claim, the trial court’s order on the motion is not reversible on that ground. The order incorrectly states that appellant entered into a negotiated plea and sentence in connection with these cases. We affirm the disposition of the motion, however, because it stated no ground for relief.
Appellant also seeks review of the lower court’s order denying his motion for rehearing. That order is not reviewable under Fla.R.App.P. 9.030 or 9.130.
The order is therefore affirmed.
SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Romano v. State, 562 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…hearing. I would affirm. Gorham v. State, 521 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.1988); Ricco v. State, 474 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Martinelli v. State, 467 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Wilson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Prince v. State, 508 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Swain v. State, 502 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).…
-
Rowe v. State, 592 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Prince v. State, 508 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).…