GREGORY PONTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for postconviction relief.
The defendant, Gregory Ponton, appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. He had previously appealed his direct conviction and a pri…
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 Procedurally Barred Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of appellant’s motion for rehearing, we withdraw the opinion dated September 5, 2001, and substitute the following opinion:
Gregory Ponton appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
Defendant’s direct appeal was affirmed, after defendant-appellant Ponton submitted a pro se brief, in a proceeding under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Ponton v. State, 744 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (table), review dismissed, 761 So. 2d 330 (Fla.2000).
Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion and supplemental motion the defendant raised forty-two claims. The trial court denied relief and this court affirmed. Ponton v. State, 756 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We have taken judicial notice of this file.
In the proceeding now before us, defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief raising forty-four claims, and an amended motion raising forty-nine claims. The trial court denied relief and the defendant has appealed.
The trial court denied some of the defendant’s claims as procedurally barred and some of the claims on the merits. We find no error in the trial court’s rulings.
Affirmed.