REGINALD L. GREENLEE, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, finding the motion legally insufficient and the new argument not preserved.
Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to rely on a specific case. The trial court …
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 Legal Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reginald L. Greenlee appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, but do so without prejudice to the defendant to file a more detailed motion.
The motion for postconviction relief filed by defendant-appellant Greenlee claimed that defendant-appellant Greenlee’s trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to prepare a defense based on Diaz v. State, 800 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), review granted, 819 So. 2d 139 (Fla.2002). As the trial court correctly pointed out, the Diaz decision was announced after the defendant entered his plea, and the original trial counsel could not be faulted for failing to rely on a decision not yet announced.*
On appeal it is now contended that the motion really meant that the original trial counsel should have relied on the authorities cited within the Diaz decision. But that is not what the Rule 3.850 motion said, and there is no indication that this argument was made in the trial court.
As the State’s response points out, there is no factual statement in the Rule 3.850 motion outlining the facts of the defendant’s case. Since the record has not been properly developed, nor the legal issues squarely presented to the trial court, we affirm the trial court’s order, with leave to the defendant to file an amended motion.
Affirmed.
*
Although not mentioned in the motion, other opinions on the issue include State v. Wilcso, 738 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Bass, 609 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); and L.W. v. State, 538 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jovon Dixon (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…ial court can only properly grant postconviction relief on a ground raised by the defendant. State v. Daniels, 826 So. 2d 1045, 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Roberts v. State, 715 So. 2d 302, 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)); see also Greenlee v. State, 832 So. 2d 900, 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding defendant could not raise on appeal of order denying motion for postconviction relief an argument that was not raised in his motion for postconviction relief). The Fifth District’s opinion in Daniels is instructive.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bass, 609 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Brown v. State, 538 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Wikso, 738 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Diaz v. State, 800 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)