CHARLES WRIGHT, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1995-02-24
No. 95-0003
HARRIS, CJ., and DIAMANTES, J., concur.
650 So. 2d 702 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that a motion for post-conviction relief based on an unlawful search and seizure claim is barred when the issue was previously raised and decided on direct appeal.


Facts & Procedural History

Wright appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to…

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.


Opinion of the Court
W. SHARP, Judge.

W. SHARP, Judge.

Wright appeals from a summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He argues that he was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure, and that defense counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the allegedly tainted evidence. We affirm.

Taking judicial notice of our records in Wright’s prior direct appeal,1 we note that defense trial counsel did, in fact, file a motion to suppress, arguing the police did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop Wright. The ineffective assistance claim is refuted by our own records.

We also note Wright took a direct appeal after he pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Since the suppression issue was raised and decided on direct appeal, clearly it cannot be rehashed in the context of a rule 3.850 motion. See Remeta v. Dugger, 622 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla.1993) (grounds which were or should have been raised on appeal may not be raised in a collateral proceeding).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, CJ., and DIAMANTES, J., concur. . Wright v. State, 642 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • O'Connor v. State, 700 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1995); Wright v. State, 650 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw