ANTHONY JAMES, 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.
In an Anders appeal, the Second District affirmed the trial court's denial of James's Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion. The court declined to address James's claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel because it was not first presented to the trial court, but permitted him to file a habeas corpus petition in circuit court to raise this issue.
The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 3.850 motion but held that it could not address the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claim because it was not first presented to the trial court. However, the affirmance was without prejudice to James filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in circuit court.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel cannot be raised in a direct appeal or a Rule 3.850 motion if it was not first presented to the trial court.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel may be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the circuit court.
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“The appellant, in his pro se brief filed in addition to the brief submitted by his assistant public defender, raises a claim that we cannot address because it was not first presented to the trial court, i.e., that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective in the proceedings on review.”
Establishes that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to address ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims not first raised before the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony James appealed the trial court's order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion both summarily and after an evidentiary hea…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Postconviction Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, both summarily and after an evidentiary hearing. The appellant, in his pro se brief filed in addition to the brief submitted by his assistant public defender, raises a claim that we cannot address because it was not first presented to the trial court, i.e., that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective in the proceedings on review. This affirmance is, therefore, without prejudice to the appellant filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court pursuant to rule 3.850(h)2 as to this matter. Cf. Lambrix v. State, 559 So. 2d 1137 (Fla.1990) (affirming trial court’s denial of writ of habeas corpus on claim of ineffectiveness of postconviction counsel).3
PATTERSON, C.J., and CASANUEYA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(h) provides:
Habeas Corpus. An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this rule shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court that sentenced the applicant or that the court has denied the applicant relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the applicant’s detention.
. In this 1990 case the supreme court cautioned that it found it unnecessary to address the right to effective assistance of counsel in collateral relief proceedings, Lambrix, 559 So. 2d at 1138, despite the fact that it was reviewing a trial's court's denial of such ineffectiveness of postconviction counsel claim upon a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Lambrix subsequently filed other appeals raising other issues not relevant to the issue addressed here, but in one of which the supreme court took the opportunity to say: ''[C]laims of ineffective assistance of postcon-viction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief.” Lambrix v. State, 698 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla.1996).
However, the 1996 holding in Lambrix has recently been called into question in Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1999). See Williams v. State, - So. 2d -, 1999 WL 638523 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug.20, 1999) (certifying a question about the continued viability of the 1996 Lambrix decision in light of the opinion in Steele v. Kehoe).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1999)
- Cary Michael Lambrix v. State, 698 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1996)
- Cary Michael Lambrix v. State, 559 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1990)