ROY NEBRASKA SCOTT, 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.
Roy Nebraska Scott appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the motion as impermissibly successive without adequately demonstrating that the previous motion was decided on the merits rather than summarily denied.
The restriction against successive motions applies only when grounds raised were previously adjudicated on their merits, not where the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed for legal insufficiency. Because the trial court did not attach portions of the record demonstrating that an earlier motion was denied on the merits, the court erred in dismissing the present motion as successive.
[1] A successive motion for post-conviction relief may be dismissed if the prior determination was on the merits and the new motion fails to allege new or different grounds f…
[2] A successive motion for post-conviction relief may be dismissed if the movant abused the procedure by failing to assert new grounds in a prior motion.
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 restriction against successive motions on the same grounds is applied only when the grounds raised were previously adjudicated on their merits, and not where the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed for legal insufficiency.”
Establishes the key legal principle that successive motion bars do not apply to previously summarily denied motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was convicted by jury trial of possession of cocaine. His direct appeal was affirmed in a prior decision. Scott filed a motion for post-convicti…
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 Abuse Of Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
MICKLE, Judge.
Roy Nebraska Scott appeals from an order denying, as impermissibly successive, his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further consideration upon an evidentiary hearing or for attachment of those portions of the record conclusively showing Scott is entitled to no relief.
Scott was convicted following a jury trial of one count of possession of cocaine. A direct appeal to this court was affirmed. Scott v. State, 600 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In the instant motion for post-conviction relief, Scott claims his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate two potential witnesses, in failing to fully advise him regarding his right to testify at trial on his own behalf, and in failing to advise the court of a potential conflict of interest. The trial court denied relief on the basis that the present motion was barred given the previous claim of ineffective assistance of counsel which had been denied.
Rule 3.850(f), which governs successive motions, provides:
A second or successive motion may be dismissed if the judge finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the movant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure governed by these rules.
The restriction against successive motions on the same grounds is applied only when the grounds raised were previously adjudicated on their merits, and not where the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed for legal insufficiency. Purcell v. State, 641 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ames v. State, 518 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Herein, the trial court did not attach anything to its order denying relief to demonstrate that an earlier motion was denied on its merits and that the present motion was successive. If, in fact, an earlier motion submitted by Scott was summarily denied as facially insufficient, then the present motion should not be considered to be successive, as any issues have yet to be decided on the merits. Widmer v. State, 641 So. 2d 174 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). As such, we reverse and remand for attachment of those portions of the record conclusively demonstrating Scott is entitled to no relief on the basis that the instant motion is successive, or, alternatively, for an evidentiary hearing on the claims raised in the motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Ames v. State, 518 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Widmer v. State, 641 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Scott v. State, 600 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Savory v. State, 600 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Purcell v. State, 641 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Firestone v. Hinds, 641 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)