PHILLIP ALEXANDER ATKINS, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, ETC., 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.
The Court held that the inmate's claims were procedurally barred as they were or should have been raised in prior appeals, and the second claim was also barred because it could not have altered the trial outcome.
An inmate under sentence of death petitioned for extraordinary relief and a writ of habeas corpus, raising two new issues not previously litigated. Th…
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 Extraordinary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Phillip Alexander Atkins, an inmate under sentence of death, petitions this Court for extraordinary relief and writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. The facts of the case and procedural history are recited in the prior cases brought by Atkins in Florida and federal courts. Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F. 2d 952 (11th Cir.1992) (affirming denial of habeas); Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1989) (denial of 3.850 motion); Atkins v. State, 497 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1986) (appeal after remand); Atkins v. State, 452 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1984) (initial direct appeal).
Atkins now complains that he is entitled to relief on two more issues: (1) that he was denied his constitutional rights when a new jury was not impaneled during his penalty phase on remand from his initial direct appeal; and (2) that he was denied his constitutional rights when this Court denied his request for time to investigate and obtain a proffer of allegedly exculpatory evidence purportedly discovered immediately prior to oral argument.
We find both of these issues barred because they either were or should have been raised in Atkins’ earlier appeals and petitions; and we find the second claim additionally barred because the matters raised by Atkins could not possibly have altered the outcome of the trial. Moreover, we find nothing in recent federal cases cited by Atkins that would lift the bar. See Espinosa v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992); Sochor v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992); Stringer v. Black, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992). Accordingly, the present petition is denied.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. Singletary, 626 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1993)…arred where there was a failure at trial to object to the instruction on the grounds of vagueness or unconstitutionality. See, e.g., Sims v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1993); Mills v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1993); Atkins v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1993); Turner v. Dugger, 614 So. 2d 1075, 1081 (Fla.1992); Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1992), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug. 9, 1993) (No. 93-5528); Johnson v. Singletary, 612 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.…
-
Atkins v. State, 663 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1995)…les sought under Florida public records law. We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(l, 7), Fla. Const. The facts of the murder and procedural history are set forth in prior opinions involving the present conviction and sentence. Atkins v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1993); Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1989); Atkins v. State, 497 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1986); Atkins v. State, 452 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1984). In this successive petition for collateral review, Atkins raises several claims. The first is that th…
-
Suggs v. State, 681 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Suggs v. State, 650 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Successive claims are procedurally barred where issues either were or should have been raised in earlier appeals. See Atkins v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1993); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Further, a defendant need not be present for resentencing where habitual offender sentences are reversed, pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1992)
- Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1992)
- Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1992)
- Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Gesemyer, 452 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1984)
- Atkins v. State, 497 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1986)