WILLIE G. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
WILLIE G. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
768 So. 2d 504
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2000)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Willie G. Davis appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s order in all respects. In his initial brief, Davis raises additional claims which he failed to raise in his motion for postcon-viction relief filed in the trial court. Because he did not include these claims in his motion filed in the trial court, we cannot address them on appeal.
Affirmed.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Shelton Scarlet, 800 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2001)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Scarlet v. State, 766 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), which expressly and directly conflicts with Johnston v. State, 768 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The issue presented in this case is whether, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 11…
-
Lambert v. State, 811 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ion of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment at parole revocation hearings. Thereafter, the Fourth District, relying on Scott, suggested that the exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of probation hearings. Johnston v. State, 768 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The Third District, however, concluded that Scott did not overturn Cross and held that evidence discovered during an unlawful search is not ad7 missible in a hearing to revoke probation. Scarlet v. State, 766 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3…
-
Williams v. State, 791 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…000), review granted, SC00-2135, 786 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Mar. 6, 2001), we hold that the exclusionary rule is applicable in a revocation of probation proceeding. We decline to follow that portion of the Fourth District’s opinion in Johnston v. State, 768 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, SC00-2442, — So. 2d — (Fla. Dec. 12, 2000), which, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott, suggests that the exclusionary rule would be inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings. Because it appears t…