CRAIG MOORE,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Craig Moore's post-conviction motion. The court found Moore's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel to be facially insufficient, lacking specific facts to support claims of deficient performance or resulting prejudice.
No, the motion was facially insufficient. Moore failed to allege specific facts establishing that his counsel's performance was deficient or that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different absent such deficiency.
[1] A post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must allege specific facts demonstrating deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
[2] General allegations or mere conclusions are insufficient to establish entitlement to relief in a post-conviction motion.
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“It is well-settled that a post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must specifically allege both: (i) facts demonstrating that counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) that the result of the proceeding conducted below would have been different absent the deficient performance.”
Establishes the legal standard for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCraig Moore filed a second amended pro se post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He claimed counsel failed to provid…
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
SCALES, J.
Craig Moore challenges the trial court’s July 8, 2020 order denying, as facially insufficient, his second amended pro se post-conviction motion alleging ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because Moore’s second amended post-conviction motion, like his two prior pro se post-conviction motions, failed to allege sufficient facts establishing that he was entitled to relief, we affirm. On November 7, 2018, this Court affirmed Moore’s conviction and sentence for one count of lewd and lascivious exhibition. See Moore v. State, 259 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (table). On June 18, 2019, the lower court received Moore’s initial pro se rule 3.850 post-conviction motion. Determining that Moore’s initial motion was timely filed, but insufficient on its face, the trial court gave Moore leave to file an amended motion.1 See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2). On January 29, 2020, the lower court received Moore’s amended pro se rule 3.850 post-conviction motion. The trial court determined, once again, that Moore’s amended motion was timely filed, but insufficient on its face, giving Moore leave to file another amended motion.
On April 15, 2020, the trial court received Moore’s second amended pro se rule 3.850 post-conviction motion. Therein, in conclusory fashion, Moore alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective for a multitude of reasons, including that defense counsel: (i) did not afford Moore witnesses “who could have provided [Moore] an alibi”; (ii) “was totally unprepared”; (iii) “was disloyal”; and (iv) had a
“total lack of communication” with Moore during the lower proceeding. Moore also questioned, without explication, whether defense counsel had been ineffective with respect to his speedy trial rights. While not entirely clear, the gravamen of Moore’s second amended rule 3.850 motion was that, rather than receiving a “fair trial” with a “real attorney,” Moore’s conviction was the result of being tried in a “kangaroo court.” On July 8, 2020, the trial court entered an order denying Moore’s second amended motion, concluding that the motion was timely filed, but insufficient on its face. Determining that to give Moore leave to file a third amended rule 3.850 post-conviction motion would be futile, the trial court entered a final order denying Moore’s post-conviction motion. Moore appeals this July 8, 2020 order.2
It is well-settled that a post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must specifically allege both: (i) facts demonstrating that counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) that the result of the proceeding conducted below would have been different absent the deficient performance. Reaves v. State, 593 So. 2d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “General allegations or mere conclusions are insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief.” Id. On this record, we agree
with the trial court that Moore’s second amended rule 3.850 post-conviction motion failed to include facts establishing both the deficient performance of defense counsel and any prejudice to Moore. Also, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to prohibit further amendment of Moore’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims in favor of entering a final order summarily denying the second amended motion with prejudice. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2) (“If the amended motion is still insufficient . . . , the court, in its discretion, may permit the defendant an additional opportunity to amend the motion or may enter a final, appealable order summarily denying the motion with prejudice.”). We, therefore, affirm the July 8, 2020 order. Affirmed.