ALLEN HAMPTON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of postconviction relief motion where appellant challenged conviction for attempted felony murder, which State v. Gray established does not exist as a criminal offense in Florida.
A conviction for attempted felony murder must be vacated because attempted felony murder is not a recognized criminal offense in Florida under State v. Gray.
[1] State v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Recognizing that a conviction and sentence should not be imposed for a purported offense which does not exist”
Court's rationale for applying Gray to postconviction relief proceedings
Appellant Hampton was convicted of attempted felony murder and sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing 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 Abuse Of Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges the denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in which he asserted that he should not have been convicted of attempted felony murder, as State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1995), establishes that there is no such criminal offense in Florida. Although the appellant had filed a prior motion under rule 3.850 raising a different claim, the supreme court’s subsequent ruling in Gray could not then have been reasonably anticipated and the present motion thus does not constitute an abuse of the procedure as delineated in rule 3.850(f).
And while the opinion in Gray recites that the decision must be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final, this does not necessarily preclude application of the decision in cases where collateral relief is sought under rule 3.850. Recognizing that a conviction and sentence should not be imposed for a purported offense which does not exist, the third district ruled in Woodley v. State, 673 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996), that the decision in Gray will apply in connection with a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. See also Brown v. State, 21 Fla.
L. Weekly D1318 (Fla. 3d DCA June 5, 1996). Following Woodley, we conclude that the decision in Gray may thus apply in the present case. The challenged order is therefore reversed and the case is remanded.
MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bulkmatic Transp. Co. v. Taylor, 860 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…the ruling is not entitled to the broad deference generally afforded a trial court’s decision to override a jury’s verdict in cases where the court found the verdict contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” Heckford v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 699 So. 2d 247, 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (citations omitted). “While it is difficult to categorize any trial error as purely legal, ‘a trial judge’s discretion progressively diminishes as an issue becomes increasingly legal.’ ” Id. (quoting Tri-Pak Mach., Inc. v. H…
-
The Est. OF Lucille Williams v. Tandem Health Care OF Fla., Inc., 899 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…d in Som-berg II, in that it failed to preserve the issue of the heirs’ entitlement to such damages. Our review standard over an order granting a motion for new trial based entirely on issues of law is de novo. See Heckford v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 699 So. 2d 247, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In applying that standard to the lower court’s application of the law to the facts, we find no error and affirm. In support of its non-preservation argument, the estate cites Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992…
-
State v. Hampton, 699 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1997)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Hampton v. State, 699 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which presents the same issue for review as did Woodley v. State, 673 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Hampton and Woodley both question whether our decision in State v. G…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Collin Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995)
- Woodley v. State, 673 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)