ANTHONY PIERCE MATTOX, 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.
Anthony Mattox appealed the summary denial of his combined motions for post-conviction relief, claiming prosecutorial misconduct through non-disclosure of fingerprint evidence and an allegedly exculpatory evidence report, and challenging his habitual offender sentence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding that Mattox failed to properly raise his claims and that prior challenges to his sentence had been unsuccessful.
The court affirmed the summary denial of Mattox's post-conviction relief motions. The failure to disclose fingerprint evidence should have been raised on direct appeal. The claim regarding the undisclosed evidence report could not proceed because Mattox failed to substantiate his allegations with proof or attach a copy of the report to his motion. The habitual offender sentencing challenge was barred because Mattox had already unsuccessfully challenged it in prior post-conviction proceedings and on direct appeal.
[1] A claim that the prosecution introduced more fingerprint evidence at trial than was disclosed to the defense prior to trial must be raised on direct appeal.
[2] A defendant seeking an evidentiary hearing on a claim of insufficient evidence must substantiate the allegation with proof, not merely assert it.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“He should have raised this issue in his direct appeal.”
Establishes that the fingerprint disclosure claim was procedurally barred and should have been raised on direct appeal rather than in post-conviction proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMattox was convicted at trial where the prosecution introduced three fingerprints, though the defense had been disclosed evidence of only one print 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 Public Records Request cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Anthony Mattox, appellant, appeals the summary denial of his combined motions for 3.850, error coram nobis, and habeas corpus relief. He claims that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecution failed to disclose certain fingerprint evidence to him prior to trial, and because the prosecution withheld an evidence report that was favorable to him. He also argues that his enhanced sentence as an habitual offender exceeds the limits provided by law. We affirm for the reasons stated below.
Mattox’s first argument is that the state introduced three fingerprints at trial after disclosing to the defense evidence of only one print prior to trial. He should have raised this issue in his direct appeal.1 See, e.g., Smith v. State, 499 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Henry v. State, 519 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Mattox next charges that a previously undisclosed evidence report dated December 11, 1981, allegedly shows that the fingerprint evidence used to convict him was legally insufficient. Mattox obtained the report pursuant to a public records request, but then lost his copy, and he states that he has been frustrated in his attempt to obtain a duplicate from the Duval County Sheriffs Department. However, Mattox has failed to substantiate his allegation with proof that the sheriffs office has refused to provide him with a copy. Because Mat-tox failed to attach a copy of the report to his motion, he therefore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing based simply upon his allegation that the state knowingly obtained his conviction based upon insufficient evidence. See Conyers v. State, 215 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1969).
Finally, Mattox contends that the trial court relied upon improper considerations when it sentenced him under the habitual offender statute. However, the reasons Mattox quotes were provided by the court as justification for retaining jurisdiction over his sentence rather than for sentencing him as an habitual offender. In any event, Mattox already unsuccessfully challenged his sentence as an habitual offender in a prior motion for post-conviction relief,2 and unsuccessfully challenged the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction in his direct appeal.
The summary denial of Mattox’s motions is AFFIRMED, without prejudicing his opportunity to demonstrate that he has exhausted all efforts to obtain a copy of the December 11, 1981 evidence report.
NIMMONS, J., and FORD L. THOMPSON, (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur. . Mattox's conviction and sentence were per curiam affirmed by this court in 1983. Mattox v. State, 433 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
. Mattox has sought post-conviction relief on six prior occasions: * two Rule 3.850 motions (Case No. BA-409 and Case No. BF-304), two Rule 3.800(a) motions (Case No. BM-7 and Case No. 88-1333), and two petitions for writ of habeas corpus (Case No. BQ-409 and Mattox v. Dugger, 839 F. 2d 1523 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 833, 109 S.Ct. 92, 102 L.Ed.2d 68 (1988)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mattox v. State, 590 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ox’s motion and the prior proceedings in this court that on June 21, 1990, this court affirmed the circuit court’s summary denial of Mattox’s combined motions for relief under rule 3.850, error coram nobis, and habeas corpus relief. Mattox v. State, 563 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 798, 112 L.Ed.2d 859 (1991). That decision held, among other things, that Mattox’s request for relief based on the state’s presentation of evidence of three fingerprints at trial after disclosin…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Conyers v. State, 215 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Smith v. State, 499 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Edwards v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 519 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Higgins v. State, 222 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1969)
- Mattox v. Dugger, 839 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Gillespie v. Ryan, 488 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1988)
- Jones v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1988)