MICHAEL IRVIN SMITH, 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 reversed the trial court's summary denial of a double jeopardy claim in a postconviction motion because double jeopardy violations are fundamental errors that can be raised for the first time post-conviction, but affirmed the denial of jury instruction and jury communication claims as procedurally barred.
Double jeopardy violations are fundamental errors that may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion under rule 3.850, requiring an evidentiary hearing when counts appear identical.
[1] Double jeopardy violations are fundamental errors that may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion under rule 3.850 and are not subject to procedural bar…
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“a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental error, see State v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1986), which can be presented for the first time in a postconviction motion”
The court explaining why the double jeopardy claim is not procedurally barred despite being raisable on direct appeal.
Smith was convicted on counts one and two, which appeared to be identical charges in the information. He filed a postconviction motion asserting three…
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 Double Jeopardy Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals a final order summarily denying his postconviction motion under rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Three grounds were asserted in the motion: (1) the defendant’s convictions for counts one and two violate double jeopardy because the two counts are identical, (2) the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on a point of law, and (3) the trial court failed to provide information requested by the jury. The trial court determined that all of these claims were procedurally barred because each of them could have been presented on direct appeal.
We must reverse the trial court’s disposition of the first claim, because a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental error, see State v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1986), which can be presented for the first time in a postconviction motion. See Willie v. State, 600 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Counts one and two of the information appear to be identical, and no portion of the record is attached to the trial court’s order to show that they are based on different incidents. Consequently, as to the defendant’s first claim we reverse for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of records conclusively showing that the defendant is not entitled to relief. We find no error as to the summary denial of the defendant’s second and third claims.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
BARFIELD, C.J., MINER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See, e.g., Moore v. State, 924 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (conviction for a non-existent crime); Pass v. State, 922 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (application of facially unconstitutional statute); Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy). In Haliburton and the cases cited therein, under the actual language of rule 3.850, [*137] the issue was whether a claim involved a judgment or sentence “imposed in vi…
-
Haliburton v. State, 7 So. 3d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See, e.g., Moore v. State, 924 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (conviction for a nonexistent crime); Pass v. State, 922 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (application of facially unconstitutional statute); Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy). In this postconviction context, the inquiry focuses on whether a manifest injustice will occur if the error is not corrected. See, e.g., Silverstein v. State, 985 So.…
-
Khalid Hayat Chaudhry v. State, 334 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)…. See Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297, 1303–04 (Fla. 2018); Amison v. State, 332 So. 3d 593, 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). A double jeopardy violation is fundamental error that may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion. Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Nonetheless, Appellant is not entitled to relief. In Dettle v. State, 334 So. 3d 346, 346–47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), rev. granted, SC22-417, 2022 WL 3656814 (Fla. Aug. 25, 2022), we held that “Lee does not apply retroactivel…
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
- State v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1986)
- Neuromed, Inc. v. Fla. Energy Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 600 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)