RONALD BEATTY, 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.
Ronald Beatty appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule 3.850. The appellate court found that several ineffective assistance of counsel claims and other issues precluded summary denial and required the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing or make a conclusive record showing on each ground.
The appellate court reversed the summary denial of the Rule 3.850 motion because the ineffective assistance of counsel claims were sufficient to preclude summary denial. The court also held that the trial court erred in rejecting the double jeopardy claim on the basis that it cannot be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion, and erred in failing to address whether victim injury points were improperly assessed.
[1] Issues that should have been raised on direct appeal do not support a subsequent claim for collateral relief.
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims may preclude summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Most of the issues raised should have been brought on direct appeal, and therefore, will not support a subsequent claim for collateral relief under Rule 3.850.”
Establishes the general rule that issues not raised on direct appeal cannot support collateral relief, but with exceptions for ineffective assistance claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Beatty filed a motion for post-conviction relief raising multiple claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, a double jeopardy claim, …
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 Victim Injury Points cases and more on FLexlaw
[*267] PER CURIAM.
Ronald Beatty appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-eonvietion relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Most of the issues raised should have been brought on direct appeal, and therefore, mil not support a subsequent claim for collateral relief under Rule 3.850. Koon v. Dugger, 619 So. 2d 246, 247 (Fla.1993). Appellant has however, raised several ineffective assistance of counsel claims which we believe are sufficient to preclude summary denial. The claims are as follows:
1. Trial counsel misrepresented that he would obtain two expert witnesses to testify on matters of medical evidence of abuse and child psychology.
2. Trial counsel invited error by agreeing to a lesser included charge of indecent assault as a lesser to sexual battery.
3. Trial counsel opened the door in cross-examination of prosecution witness which allowed state rebuttal witnesses to show bad character and propensity to commit the crime charged.
4. Trial counsel failed to schedule a portion of Williams rule hearing.
5. Trial counsel failed to call an alibi witness who would have testified that appellant was not present at the time offense was committed.
6. Trial counsel failed to move to suppress expert testimony on the basis that it was hearsay.
Appellant has also raised a double jeopardy claim in his motion. The trial court rejected that claim solely on the basis that double jeopardy cannot be raised in a rule 3.850 motion. This finding was error. See Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (double jeopardy may be raised in a rule 3.850 motion). Finally, the trial court erroneously failed to address the issue of whether forty victim injury points were improperly assessed against appellant.
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the rule 3.850 motion, and direct the trial court to either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the files and records conclusively showing that appellant is not entitled to relief on each ground asserted above. See Jones v. State, 589 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
DELL, C.J., and FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alwin J. Jacobs v. State, 880 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2004)…A 1999) (finding that the IAC claim was facially sufficient, but that the trial court failed to attach the portion of the record that “refutes, or even addresses, the defendant’s claim that counsel failed to call an alibi witness”); Beatty v. State, 647 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (remanding the case on several IAC claims, including counsel’s failure to call an alibi witness, directing the trial court to either hold a hearing or “attach portions of the files and records conclusively showing that appel…
-
Tambriz-Ramirez v. State, 213 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…lation. Although appellant is serving a life sentence on Count 1, and his challenge to Counts 2 and 3 may not necessarily reduce the term of his incarceration, a double jeopardy violation can be raised in a timely rule 3.850 motion. Beatty v. State, 647 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Appellant is not required to show that the convictions being challenged on double jeopardy grounds result in an increase in the term of his incarceration. See State v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 420, 423 (Fla. 1986) (concluding th…
Authorities Cited
- Koon v. Dugger, 619 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1993)
- Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Canino v. S. Fla. Bev. Corp., 589 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Jones v. State, 589 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)