RICHARD FARRIS KELLAR, 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.
Richard Farris Kellar appeals a denial of postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy violations. The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of the ineffective assistance claim but reversed and remanded for the trial court to address on the merits Kellar's argument that convictions for battery, petit theft, grand theft auto, and grand theft of a firearm violated double jeopardy as lesser included offenses of armed robbery and armed burglary.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the ineffective assistance claim. The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of the double jeopardy claim and remanded for the trial court to address that claim on the merits, as double jeopardy violations constitute fundamental errors presentable for the first time in postconviction motions.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to raise the defense of justifiable use of non-deadly force can be raised in a postconviction motion.
[2] A violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental error that can be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion.
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“violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental error which can be presented for the first time in a postconviction motion”
Establishes that double jeopardy claims are fundamental errors not subject to procedural default, allowing them to be raised for the first time in postconviction proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1992, Kellar was convicted of multiple offenses including kidnapping, grand theft, grand theft auto, grand theft of a firearm, armed robbery…
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 Non-Deadly Force cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Farris Kellar (Kellar), in August of 1992 was convicted of kidnapping, grand theft, grand theft auto, grand theft of a firearm, armed robbery, armed burglary with assault, battery, criminal mischief, driving with a suspended license, and fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement. This court, on appeal, affirmed the kidnapping conviction, reduced the grand theft conviction to petit theft, and vacated the departure sentence and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. Kellar v. State, 640 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
The trial court, on remand, sentenced Kellar to twenty-seven years in prison with a minimum mandatory sentence of three years. After resentencing, Kellar’s counsel, on March 3, 1995, filed an Anders Brief stating that no good faith arguments could be made to the appellate court. This court affirmed Kellar’s convictions and sentence. Kellar v. State, 654 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Kellar, in February of 1997, filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The trial court, on March 25, 1998, after holding an evidentiary hearing, denied Kellar’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the defense of the justifiable use of non-deadly force as a defense to the charge of armed kidnapping. We affirm the trial court’s ruling with regard to this issue.
Kellar also claimed that his convictions for battery, petit theft, grand theft auto, and grand theft of a firearm, violated the prohibition against double jeopardy since all of these crimes were lesser included crimes of armed robbery and armed burglary. The trial court summarily denied this claim on the grounds that Kellar should have raised the claim on direct appeal. However, the trial court should have addressed this claim on the merits. See Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(holding that violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental error which can be presented for the first time in a postconviction motion). Thus, we remand this portion of the order with instructions to address on the merits Kellar’s claim that a double jeopardy violation occurred.
We affirm in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Kellar v. State, 640 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)