WILLIAM CRAFT, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
William Craft petitioned for a belated appeal after claiming his trial counsel failed to file a notice of appeal as requested. After an evidentiary hearing resolved the factual dispute against Craft, the court denied his petition for belated appeal and also denied the State's motion for sanctions, finding that mere credibility determinations would be insufficient to support statutory sanctions under Florida law.
The petition for belated appeal is denied because the special master found against Craft on the underlying factual dispute. The State's motion for sanctions is also denied because, under Sword v. State, the special master's mere resolution of credibility questions adversely to the petitioner is insufficient to support statutory sanctions under section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
[1] A petition for belated appeal may be denied when an evidentiary hearing resolves a factual dispute against the petitioner.
[2] A prisoner found by a court to have brought false information or evidence before the court, or a frivolous suit, may forfeit gain-time and the right to earn future gain-t…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 special master's mere resolution of credibility questions adversely to petitioner will not be sufficient to support statutory sanctions”
Establishes the legal standard that sanctions under section 944.28(2)(a) require more than adverse credibility findings; additional evidence of statutory factors must be presented.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCraft asserted under oath that he timely requested his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal, which was not honored. In response, the State obtaine…
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 Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Craft petitioned this court for a belated appeal, asserting under oath that he timely asked his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal and that request was not honored. In accordance with Schubert v. State, 737 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the State obtained a sworn statement from counsel that Craft did not ask him to appeal. This court relinquished jurisdiction with instructions that an evidentiary hearing be conducted and the special master resolved the factual dispute against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition for belated appeal is denied.
The State has moved for sanctions on the basis that petitioner either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth brought false information before this court. See § 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).
The statute allows forfeiture of gain-time and the right to earn gain-time in the future if a prisoner “is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal in any court,” or “to have knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth brought false information or evidence before the court.” Id. We deny the motion for sanctions. In so doing, we note the special master’s conclusions of law concerning Craft’s lack of credibility. We have also, however, reviewed carefully the transcript of Craft’s actual sentencing hearing. At least three different cases were consolidated for purposes of a plea and sentence at that time. The transcript is confusing. Should the State wish to seek statutory sanctions in these cases in the future, it would be well advised to present evidence from which a special master could address the statutory factors of section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997).
Under this court’s decision in Sword v. State, the special master’s mere resolution of credibility questions adversely to petitioner will not be sufficient to support statutory sanctions. 745 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
BOOTH, ALLEN, and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schubert v. State, 737 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Sword v. State, 745 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)