MICHAEL FREEMAN, 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.
Michael Freeman appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, but on the ground that Freeman's claims could and should have been raised on direct appeal, rather than on the trial court's stated ground that the motion was successive.
The court affirmed the denial of Freeman's motion, but on the ground that each claim could and should have been raised on direct appeal, not on the trial court's ground that it was a successive motion. A motion cannot be properly denied as successive unless the prior determination was on the merits, and the trial court's prior denial as facially insufficient did not constitute a determination on the merits.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief may be denied as successive if the prior determination was on the merits.
[2] A prior motion for post-conviction relief that was denied as facially insufficient was not determined on the merits.
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“Denial of a 3.850 motion as successive is proper, provided that 'the prior determination was on the merits.'”
Establishes the legal standard for when a successive post-conviction motion may be denied; requires prior determination on the merits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFreeman was convicted by jury of four counts of burglary of a structure with intent to commit a lewd act on a child less than 14 and sentenced to 17 y…
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 Merits Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
Michael Freeman has appealed an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm, although on a different ground than that stated by the trial court.
Freeman was convicted by jury of four counts of burglary of a structure with in tent to commit a lewd act on a child less than 14, and was sentenced to 17 years incarceration. His conviction and sentence were affirmed in Freeman v. State, 545 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In April 1990, Freeman filed a 3.850 motipn alleging unlawful arrest, violation of his right against self-incrimination, an unconstitutional jury, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion as facially insufficient, and the instant motion alleging similar grounds was thereafter filed on September 25, 1990. The trial court denied it as well, stating, “The Court has previously entertained a motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”
Denial of a 3.850 motion as successive is proper, provided that “the prior determination was on the merits.” Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P.; Williams v. State, 561 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).' The trial court did not determine Freeman’s April 1990 motion on its merits, but rather held it “facially insufficient.” It therefore appeared that the trial court had denied Freeman’s second motion in error, and this court requested a response from the Attorney General’s office pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The state responded that the trial court correctly denied the motion as successive, except as to the allegation of an illegal sentence. The state urged that we nevertheless affirm, in that further examination of the allegation reveals that Freeman challenged his conviction and not his sentence.
We cannot agree that Freeman’s second 3.850 motion was correctly denied as successive, in that the prior motion was never addressed on its merits. Williams. However, further review of the motion shows that each ground raised by Freeman therein could and should have been raised on direct appeal.1 Therefore, Freeman’s motion was correctly denied, albeit for the wrong reason, and we affirm. See Robinson v. State, 393 So. 2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (if a trial court’s order is sustainable under any theory revealed by the record on appeal, notwithstanding that it may have been entered for erroneous reasons, the order will be affirmed).
Affirmed.
BOOTH and WOLF, JJ., concur. . Freeman alleged that 1) his conviction had been obtained by use of a coerced confession, 2) that he was illegally detained prior to his arrest, 3) that police continued to interrogate him without providing counsel, despite his indication that he desired counsel but could not afford it, and 4) his conviction was obtained by knowing use of perjured testimony.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
ACE Disposal & Fla. Air Condition Contractors v. Holley, 668 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…Rehab, v. Godwin, 420 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We may apply this principle even where the ground or theory has not been presented to the lower tribunal or in the appellee’s brief. E.g., Palm Beach Junior College v. Aho; Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The statutory language under review was added as a portion of a sentence to previously existing provisions in section 440.15(l)(f)2.b: b. The division shall provide by rule for the periodic reporting to the employer or carrier…
-
Parker v. State, 603 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…of the judgment attached thereto. Because appellant’s claims are facially insufficient to warrant relief, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief, albeit on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court. See Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Swartz, 734 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…I convictions necessary to bring the charge of felony DUI. This argument is properly before this court because an appellate court will affirm an order on appeal where it is sustainable on an alternate theory revealed by the record. Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Based on the fact section 316.193(2)(b) is silent as to when or where the previous DUI convictions must have taken place, we conclude Swartz’s prior convictions are not too remote to form the requisite three DUI convictions. See…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Robinson v. State, 393 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Williams v. State, 561 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)