RAYMOND ROBERT CLARK, 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 prisoner's claims were procedurally barred as they had been previously considered or were variations of prior claims.
A prisoner, Clark, appealed the trial court's denial of his fourth motion for post-conviction relief, raising four issues. These issues, or variations…
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 Mitigating Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Clark, a prisoner for whom a fifth death warrant has been signed, appeals the trial court’s denial of his fourth motion for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief.
Clark has a long history in the courts. Clark v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1990), and cases cited therein.* He raised four issues in the instant motion: 1) violation of Clemons v. Mississippi, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990); 2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to develop mitigating evidence; 3) unconstitutionality, on its face and as applied, of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel instruction; and 4) failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. All of these claims, or variations of them, have been considered previously. They are, therefore, procedurally barred, and we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of relief. We deny a further stay of execution.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, ehrlich, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
*
The federal courts again denied relief since the filing of our most recent opinion. Clark v. Dugger, 901 F. 2d 908 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Francis v. Barton, 581 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1991)…in the law and do not require retroactive application in postcon-vietion proceedings. The issue of the jury override is, therefore, procedurally barred in this successive petition. E.g., Spaziano v. State, 570 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1990); Clark v. State, 569 So. 2d 1263 (Fla.1990); Bolender v. Dugger, 564 So. 2d 1057 (Fla.1990); Adams v. State, 543 So. 2d 1244 (Fla.1989); Booker v. State, 503 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1987); Christopher v. State, 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1986). We considered the propriety of finding witness elimin…
-
Davis v. State, 589 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1991)…ect appeal or on postconviction in some form or other.” Claims that have been previously raised are procedurally barred. E.g., Francis v. Barton, 581 So. 2d 583 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2879, 115 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1991); Clark v. State, 569 So. 2d 1263 (Fla.1990); Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1989); Eutzy v. State, 541 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1989). The cases Davis relies on are not fundamental changes in the law which require retroactive application. Moreover, these claims violate the two-year…
Authorities Cited
- Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1990)
- Clark v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1990)
- Clark v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 908 (11th Cir. 1990)