TYRONE YOUNG, 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.
The court held that a successive post-conviction motion is barred absent newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional right, and issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are not properly raised in a rule 3.850 motion.
The appellant filed a second post-conviction motion after his first was denied. The second motion raised a new claim regarding probation conditions an…
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 Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Young’s second post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, because it is successive. In his first motion, he argued that his counsel was ineffective for having failed to raise the issue of improper scoring of victim injuxy points. We affirmed the trial court’s denial of that motion. Young v. State, 702 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
In this motion, Young claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the validity of the probation conditions violated by Young. This is a different ground, but successive ineffective assistance of counsel claims are properly barred, absent allegations of newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional right, neither of which are presented in this second motion. Pope v. State, 702 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1997); Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991).
Young does raise a new issue in this second motion — that the trial court failed to notify him which condition of probation he was found guilty of having violated. However, this is an issue which Young could have and should have addressed in a direct appeal. It is not properly raised in a rule 3.850 motion. See generally Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1996); Rose v. State, 675 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1996).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travoris Lamar George v. State, 764 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…5th DCA 2000); George v. State, 743 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). . See Orr v. State, 691 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). . See Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991); Young v. State, 724 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). .See Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1995); Zeigler v. State, 654 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.1995).…
-
Moriarty v. State, 806 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Young v. State, 724 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) and Zeigler v. State, 654 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.1995). COBB, PLEUS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.…
-
Maldonado v. State, 730 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Young v. State, 724 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). GOSHORN, HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Rose v. State, 675 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1996)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)
- Pope v. State, 702 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1997)
- Rainey v. Rainey, 702 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)