ANDREW RANES, 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 trial court erred in denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus as successive when the prior petition was denied as legally insufficient, not on the merits.
[1] A postconviction petition is not impermissibly successive if the prior petition was denied as legally insufficient rather than on the merits.
[2] The doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel will not be applied if its application would result in a manifest injustice.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging counsel failed to file a postconviction motion. The trial court denied this petition as …
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 Insufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Andrew Ranes appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Ranes’s motion alleged that he retained counsel to file a postconviction motion, but counsel failed to do so. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(3); Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1999).
The trial court denied Ranes’s petition, finding that it was impermissibly successive because Ranes had filed a previous petition seeking the same relief. Ranes appealed the denial of the original petition, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution. In this appeal, Ranes argues that the trial court erred in denying the instant petition as successive because the previous petition was denied as legally insufficient. We agree and reverse.
The order denying Ranes’s first petition indicates that Ranes’s allegations “even if true do not support the relief requested.” This language indicates that the trial court did not believe that Ranes provided sufficient supporting facts. Thus, the denial of the first petition was not on the merits of the claim. The trial court erred in denying the instant petition as impermissibly successive where the first petition was not denied on the merits. See McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983).
Furthermore, neither the doctrine of res judicata nor collateral estoppel will be applied when it will result in a manifest injustice. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 292 (Fla.2003). In his initial brief, Ranes included copies of letters he received from his attorneys showing their intention of representing him in postconviction proceedings. Ranes’s petition adequately set forth a claim for relief under Steele by alleging that “he ... missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his or her attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner.” 747 So. 2d at 934. Due process entitles Ranes to a hearing on his legally sufficient claim. Id.
We reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Ranes’s claim of a Steele exception.
GUNTHER, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Wakulla Fishermen's Ass'n, Inc., 141 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding the manifest injustice exception to the res judicata doctrine was applicable when the defendant was sentenced under a version of the sentencing guidelines that was later held to be unconstitutional); Ranes v. State, 913 So. 2d 742, 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (determining the manifest injustice exception was applicable when the defendant sufficiently alleged and established that he missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his attorney had agreed to file the motion…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1999)
- McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)