MICHAEL CURTIS, 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.
Michael Curtis appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion for relief. The trial court improperly denied six of eight issues based on a procedural ground that they should have been raised on direct appeal, when Curtis's actual claim was that trial counsel's ineffectiveness prevented him from preserving these issues for appeal.
The trial court erred in denying the postconviction motion on the procedural ground that the issues should have been raised on appeal. Claims of trial counsel's ineffectiveness cannot be foreclosed merely because they were not preserved for direct appeal when the gravamen of the claim is that counsel's failure to object or file appropriate motions prevented their preservation. The denial as to two issues is affirmed, but the denial as to six issues is reversed and remanded.
[1] A postconviction motion may not be denied on the grounds that the issues raised should have been presented on direct appeal when the gravamen of the claim is that trial c…
[2] Claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness, which generally cannot be raised on direct appeal, are properly cognizable in a postconviction motion.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court's determination that Curtis's claims should properly have been pursued on plenary appeal is erroneous. To the contrary, the arguments raised by Curtis were not and could not have been presented on appeal because the issues were not preserved by trial counsel, which is precisely the point Curtis argues.”
Establishes the core legal principle that trial counsel's failure to preserve issues cannot be used as a procedural bar to postconviction ineffectiveness claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCurtis filed a motion for postconviction relief containing eight issues. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that six of the issues had eith…
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*514] PER CURIAM.
Michael Curtis appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that all the issues outlined in the motion had either been unsuccessfully presented to this court in Curtis’s direct appeal or should have been raised on appeal. Of the eight issues submitted in Curtis’s motion, only two were properly denied, and, accordingly, on the others we reverse.
Of the six remaining issues, five complain that counsel failed to register an objection or failed to file an appropriate motion to preserve potential error for review, and the sixth incorporates these into a claim of cumulative ineffectiveness of trial counsel. The trial court denied these claims, presuming that these issues had been raised on appeal because similar issues were set forth by trial counsel in the statement of judicial acts to be reviewed on appeal. The court’s reliance upon the statement to document the actual issues raised on appeal was misplaced, as most of these issues in fact had not been briefed.1
The trial court’s determination that Curtis’s claims should properly have been pursued on plenary appeal is erroneous. To the contrary, the arguments raised-by Curtis were not and could not have been presented on appeal because the issues were not preserved by trial counsel, which is precisely the point Curtis argues. See Knight v. State, 710 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that trial court erred by barring postconviction claim on procedural grounds that it should have been raised on appeal when the gravamen of the prisoner’s claim was that he was prevented from doing so due to trial counsel’s ineffectiveness).
Accordingly, it is ordered that the denial of the motion for postconviction relief as to issue two and issues four through eight is reversed and remanded for reconsideration. On remand, unless the case file and record conclusively demonstrate that Curtis is not entitled to relief, an evidentiary hearing shall be conducted. If the court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must attach to its order those portions of the case file and record which refute Curtis’s claims. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion as to issues one and three.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ„ Concur. . Whether an issue relating to a criminal conviction was in fact raised on appeal is seldom of any consequence in the analysis of a post-conviction motion. If the issue is one which could have been raised on plenary review, it is invariably foreclosed from later collateral review. See Johnson v. State, 593 So. 2d 206, 208 (Fla.1992). Curtis’s claims in this proceeding involve accusations of the ineffectiveness of trial counsel which, except in unusual circumstances, may not be raised on direct appeal. See Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578, 585 (Fla.1986); Healey v. State, 556 So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 764 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…laim because it concluded that Rodriguez had raised the issue, or a variation of it, on direct appeal. The trial court based its conclusion on the statement of judicial acts to be reviewed, a practice this court has disapproved. See Curtis v. State, 757 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Generally, this court does not address ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal and, in this case, the issue in fact had not been briefed in the direct appeal. Nevertheless, we affirm because it is clear from the testimony…
Authorities Cited
- Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1986)
- Johnson v. State, 593 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1992)
- Healey v. State, 556 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Knight v. State, 710 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)