DELMETRIC DOWLING, 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.
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be used to relitigate an issue previously decided on direct appeal.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the e…
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 Weight Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
Appellant alleged that his counsel was ineffective in not filing a motion for new trial after the jury found him guilty on the basis that the weight of the evidence was contrary to the verdict. The trial court deemed appellant’s motion time-barred under the two-year filing deadline and denied relief.
The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for this reason. Nevertheless, we affirm because appellant seeks to relitigate this asserted error under the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Appellant relies on the same testimony he referenced in his direct appeal (in which he claimed that there was insufficient evidence to convict him) to now claim his lawyer should have requested a new trial because the evidence weighed in his favor. Both of these claims, here and on direct appeal, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.
Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim reargues an issue previously addressed on direct appeal. See Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(on motion for clarification)(“Rule 3.850 does not provide a second chance to raise allegedly reversible error that was argued in the original appeal by re-raising it under the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”); see also Vazquez v. State, 653 So. 2d 486, 486-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(“Vazquez will not be allowed a second appeal under the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”).
Accordingly, we affirm.
DELL, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 4 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…scuss the substance of the particular claims to explain why these issues are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion, and the State did not show that this was an improper attempt to re-litigate issues raised on direct appeal. Compare Dowling v. State, 796 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). As an alternative basis for denial, the State argued each of the claims is without merit and refuted by the record. The State’s response provided a number of pinpoint citations to the trial transcripts and portions of the recor…
Authorities Cited
- Sterling Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Vazquez v. State, 653 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)