JUAN ROBERTO MELENDEZ, 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 denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the claims of ineffective appellate counsel to be without merit.
Juan Roberto Melendez, convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of …
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
Juan Roberto Melendez petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. Melendez was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery for which he received a death sentence and a life sentence respectively. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Melendez v. State, 498 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1986). We subsequently denied Melendez’s appeal of the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 349, 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993). Melendez then filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Melendez claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective for a number of reasons.1 We find his claim to be without merit. We deny the petition.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, KOGAN, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur. . Melendez claims that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel on the following issues: A) Melendez was prevented from cross-examining witnesses and prevented from introducing evidence necessary to prove his innocence; B) there is insufficient evidence to support the murder conviction; C) the death sentence is arbitrary in light of the fact that an alleged co-perpetrator was never charged; D) Melendez did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to present evidence in mitigation; E) the shifting of the burden of proof in the jury instructions at sentencing deprived Mr. Melendez of his rights; F) the death sentence rests upon an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (55 total)
-
Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2003)…), Fla. Stat. (1997); Somberg v. Florida Convalescent Ctrs., Inc., 779 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), approved, 840 So. 2d 998 (Fla.2003). Absent such expression of intent, a private right of action is not implied. Cf. Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So. 2d 983, 986 (Fla.1994) (“In general, a statute that does not purport to establish civil liability but merely makes provision to secure the safety or welfare of the public as an entity, will not be construed as establishing a civil liability.”) (quoting Moy…
-
Melendez v. State, 718 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1998)…eonviction relief in July 1989, and we affirmed. Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 934, 114 S.Ct. 349, 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993). We denied his subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Melendez v. Singletary, 644 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1994). Melendez filed the present motion for post-conviction relief in September 1994, seeking to present newly discovered evidence that another man, Vernon James, was the killer. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in May 1996, wherei…
-
Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006)…have held in the past that when construing a statute, a court “may look to acts passed at subsequent sessions to discern legislative intent.” Clair v. Glades County Bd. ofComm’rs, 649 So. 2d 224, 227 n. 5 (Fla.1995) (citing Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1994); Watson v. Holland, 155 Fla. 342, 20 So. 2d 388 (1944)). Further, we have recognized that we have “the right and duty, in arriving at the correct meaning of a prior statute, to consider subsequent legislation.” Parker v. State, 406 So. 2d…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 55 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spanolia v. Lee's Crane Serv., Inc., 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1992)
- Melendez v. State, 498 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1986)