ANTHONY L. PARKER, 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 Parker appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, challenging the trial court's timeliness finding. The appellate court affirmed the denial but on different grounds, concluding Parker's allegations were facially insufficient to warrant relief despite finding the motion was timely filed.
Although Parker's Rule 3.850 motion was filed timely under the reasoning in Gust v. State, his motion is properly denied because all his allegations are facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to post-conviction relief. His conclusory ineffective assistance claims lack specific factual support; his evidentiary challenges are barred by his guilty plea and must be raised on direct appeal; and his sentencing challenge is refuted by the record.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is facially insufficient if allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are stated as mere conclusions, unsupported by specific f…
[2] Claims attacking the validity and sufficiency of evidence are not cognizable on a motion for post-conviction relief and must be raised on direct appeal.
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“the allegations are facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief”
Establishes the standard for dismissing post-conviction relief claims that lack adequate factual specificity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParker pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault. He received a five-year sentence on count one with a three-year mandatory minimum for firearm …
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 Legality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Anthony L. Parker, seeks review of the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court's summary denial was based on a finding that the motion was untimely under the two-year limitation period set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm on other grounds.
At the outset, from our review of the record, we conclude that appellant’s rule 3.850 motion was filed timely under the reasoning articulated in Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). However, we find it unnecessary to remand with directions to rule upon the merits of the motion, because we conclude the allegations are facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief.
Appellant’s motion reflects that he pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault. A five-year sentence was imposed on count one, with a three-year mandatory minimum for use of a firearm. A consecutive four-year sentence was imposed on count two, without the mandatory firearm enhancement. As grounds for relief, appellant alleged that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in numerous respects, he challenged various aspects of the evidence offered by the state to support his convictions, and he contended that his sentence exceeded the maximum penalty authorized by law.
Appellant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are stated as mere conclusions, unsupported by allegations of specific facts which, when considered in the totality of the circumstances, are not conclusively refuted by the record and demonstrate a deficiency of counsel that was detrimental to the defendant. As such, the allegations are facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief. Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255, 1259 (Fla.1990); Kennedy v. State, 547 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla.1989); Williams v. State, 553 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Appellant’s allegations regarding the identification process, the convictions for possession of a firearm and aggravated assault, and his confession, constitute attacks upon the va lidity and sufficiency of the evidence. Such claims must be raised on direct appeal, and are not cognizable on a motion for post-conviction relief. Among other things, the effect of a guilty plea is to preclude an attack, by way of a post-conviction motion, on the validity of evidence or the admissibility of evidence. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279 (1969); Dean v. State, 580 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Whitlow v. State, 256 So. 2d 48, 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Finally, appellant’s attack upon the legality of his sentences is refuted by the allegations of the motion and the copy 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guzman-Aviles v. State, 226 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…t held that because Guzman-Aviles entered a negotiated plea, “[t]he effect of [the] plea [was] to preclude an attack, by way of a post-conviction mo [*342] tion, on the validity of evidence or the admissibility of evidence,” quoting Parker v. State, 603 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The court attached to the order on appeal a copy of the plea agreement and the transcript from the change of plea hearing at which Guzman-Aviles testified that he was waiving his right to trial and to confront the State’s e…
-
Harold R. Sheriff v. Moore, 781 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…re, the appellant raises arguments on events occurring before entry of his plea. Therefore, the appellant is precluded from raising these arguments in a petition for habeas corpus. See Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla.1988); Parker v. State, 603 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). AFFIRMED. ERVIN, WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Telfair v. State, 719 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Johnson v. Singletary, 695 So. 2d 263, 265 (Fla.1996); Parker v. State, 603 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). BARFIELD, C.J., DAVIS, J., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- Kennedy v. State, 547 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1989)
- Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1990)
- Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Williams v. State, 553 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Dean v. State, 580 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Whitlow v. State, 256 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)