PEDRO MEDINA, PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD L. DUGGER, RESPONDENT
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.
Pedro Medina, a death row inmate, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his murder conviction and death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that most issues were procedurally barred because they had been raised or could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings.
All six issues presented in the habeas petition are procedurally barred because they were either raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction motions, or they attempt to circumvent procedural rules by repackaging previously raised issues as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] A trial court's determination of a defendant's competency to proceed with postconviction proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require a showing of deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Ha-beas corpus is not to be used for additional appeals of issues that could have been, should have been, or were raised on appeal or in other postconviction motions.”
Establishes the fundamental procedural bar to habeas review of issues previously or potentially raised on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePedro Medina was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and theft of an automobile. His convictions and death sentence were affirmed on direct appea…
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 Procedural Bar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pedro Medina, a prisoner on death row, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(9), Florida Constitution, and deny the petition.
A jury convicted Medina of first-degree murder and theft of an automobile, and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence of death. Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046 (Fla.1985). Later, Medina filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. On appeal this Court affirmed that denial. Medina v. State, 573 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1990).
The instant petition presents six issues, the first three of which deal with Medina’s competency at trial and sentencing. The remaining issues are: (4) whether one of Medina’s statements should have been suppressed; (5) whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (6) whether handcuffing and shackling Medina at trial violated his rights. As Medina admits, he raised his competency and the suppression and handcuffing/shackling issues on direct appeal and in his motion for postconviction relief. “Ha-beas corpus is not to be used for additional appeals of issues that could have been, should have been, or were raised on appeal or in other postconviction motions.” Mills v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 578, 579 (Fla.1990). Therefore, issues (1) through (3), (4), and (6) are procedurally barred.
As part of the first issue, Medina claims that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inadequately briefing the competency issue. Although claims of ineffective assistance by appellate counsel are cognizable in habeas corpus petitions, “using a different argument to relitigate an issue in postconviction proceedings is not appropriate.” Porter v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla.1990). Furthermore, “an allegation of ineffective counsel will not be permitted to serve as a means of circumventing the rule that habeas corpus proceedings do not provide a second or substitute appeal.” Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987). Therefore, the ineffectiveness subclaim in the first issue is procedurally barred. Porter. While ostensibly cognizable in this proceeding, in reality the fifth claim, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, is also barred. Trial counsel did not object regarding the four items appellate counsel is now faulted for not raising. Appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise issues not preserved for appeal. Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255 (Fla.1990). Also, Medina raised the merits of these issues (absence from shackling hearing, improperly limited cross-examination of victim’s daughter, improper closing argument, and diminishing of jury’s sense of responsibility) in his motion for postconviction relief. Merely clothing these issues in the guise of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness is unavailing. Thus, the fifth issue is also proce durally barred. Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1989).
Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)…ly harmless error.” Id. at 1001. In addition, ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be argued where the issue was not preserved for appeal or where the appellate attorney chose not to argue the issue as a matter of strategy. See Medina v. Dugger, 586 So. 2d 317 (Fla.1991); Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla.1989) (“Most successful appellate counsel agree that from a tactical standpoint it is more advantageous to raise only the strongest points on appeal and that the assertion of every conceivable…1 / 3
-
Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2000)…ger, 718 So. 2d 138, 142 (Fla.1998); Groover, 656 So. 2d at 425. This is generally true as to issues that would have been found to be procedurally barred had they been raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Groover, 656 So. 2d at 425; Medina v. Dugger, 586 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla.1991). With these principles in mind, we turn to Rutherford’s claims that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective. In his first, ninth, and tenth claims, Rutherford asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise…
-
Dusty Ray Spencer v. State, 842 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2003)…ger, 734 So. 2d 1009, 1027 (Fla.1999); see also Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So. 2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985). Under this analysis, appellate counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise issues not preserved for appeal. See Medina v. Dugger, 586 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla.1991). However, an exception may be made where appellate counsel fails to raise a claim which, although not preserved at trial, presents a fundamental error. See Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255, 1261 (Fla.1990). A fundamental error is de…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blanco v. Louie L. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1987)
- Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1990)
- Medina v. State, 573 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1990)
- Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1985)
- Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1989)
- Mills v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1990)
- Raleigh Porter v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1990)