LUMPKIN
v.
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.
When a postconviction court's factual findings and credibility determinations are supported by competent, substantial evidence, an appellate court defers to those findings.
[1] Appellate courts defer to a postconviction court's factual findings and credibility determinations when those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, b…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Where the postconviction court's factual findings and credibility determinations are supported by competent, substantial evidence, this Court will defer to its findings because the postconviction court has a 'superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings of fact.'”
Court's statement of the standard of review for postconviction proceedings
Johnny Lumpkin appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which alleged seven grounds…
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 Appellate Deference To Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Lumpkin appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion alleged seven grounds for relief. The postconviction court granted an evidentiary hearing on three of those grounds. “If there was an evidentiary hearing, as there was here, this Court defers to the postconviction court’s factual findings, credibility decisions, and weight determinations.” Grandison v. State, 276 So. 3d 43, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). The postconviction court made a credibility determination in favor of Appellant’s counsel and against Appellant. That finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Moore v. State, 132 So. 3d
718, 727 (Fla. 2013) (“Where the postconviction court’s factual findings and credibility determinations are supported by competent, substantial evidence, this Court will defer to its findings because the postconviction court has a ‘superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings of fact.’”) (quoting Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001)). The denial of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief is therefore AFFIRMED. OSTERHAUS, C.J., and KELSEY and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________