STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGIA S. WATERS, 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.
The State appealed a trial court's grant of postconviction relief to Georgia Waters based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a pretrial motion in limine regarding Williams rule evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding that Waters was procedurally barred from raising the issue in postconviction proceedings because the admissibility of the same Williams rule evidence had already been considered and decided adversely to her on direct appeal.
A defendant is procedurally barred from seeking postconviction relief based on the same evidentiary issue that was previously considered and decided adversely to the defendant on direct appeal, even if framed as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to file a pretrial motion in limine is procedurally barred when the admissibility of the evidence at iss…
[2] A defendant cannot seek postconviction relief on an issue that was previously decided adversely to them on direct appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the propriety of the same Williams rule evidence was previously considered on Waters' direct appeal and the issue was decided adversely to her, Waters is procedurally barred from seeking postconviction relief on the basis of the same issue.”
Establishes the core holding that a defendant cannot use postconviction relief to relitigate evidentiary issues already decided on direct appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1994, Waters was convicted of battery on an elderly person, forgery, uttering forged instruments, grand theft, and petit theft. The Williams rule e…
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 Williams Rule Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The State challenges an order entered in favor of the appellee, Georgia S. Waters, on her motion for postconvietion relief, which was based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court found that Waters’ trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a pretrial motion in limine to either completely exclude, or to at least limit, the admission of certain Williams1 rule evidence. The State contends the trial court erred in granting Waters relief in this instance because, not only did trial counsel object to the Williams rule evidence in an effort to prevent it from being admitted at trial, but the issue of the admissibility of the Williams rule evidence was considered and affirmed on Waters’ direct appeal. We agree and reverse.
In 1994, Waters was convicted of one count of battery on an elderly person, three counts of forgery, three counts of uttering a forged instrument, one count of grand theft, and one count of petit theft. Waters appealed her convictions, contending the trial court erred in overruling her objections to the same Williams rule evidence at issue herein and in failing to grant her motion for a judgment of acquittal on all counts. In 1996, this court per curiam affirmed her judgments and sentences in all respects, including the Williams rule evidence issue. See Waters v. State, 670 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Thereafter, Waters filed the instant motion for posteon-vietion relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for, in essence, failing to do more to preclude the admission of the very damaging Williams rule evidence, which demonstrated that Waters had a distinct pattern of preying on elderly women for money.
Because the propriety of the same Williams rule evidence was previously considered on Waters’ direct appeal and the issue was decided adversely to her, Waters is procedurally barred from seeking postconviction relief on the basis of the same issue. See Kelley v. State, 569 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1990); Hitchcock v. State, 432 So. 2d 42 (Fla.1983). We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting Waters’ motion for postconvietion relief.
Reversed.
PARKER, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…s holding that a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 may not raise issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 707 So. 2d 688, 698 (Fla.1998); Medina v. State, 573 So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla.1990); State v. Waters, 718 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). These cases have sometimes further explained that an issue rejected on direct appeal may not simply be realleged as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1067 (Fla.2000);…
-
Daymon v. State, 726 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Waters, 718 So. 2d 225 (Fla.2d DCA 1998). W. SHARP, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- Hitchcock v. State, 432 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1983)
- Kelley v. State, 569 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1990)