DERRICK ALLEN, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Derrick Allen petitioned for a second writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, denied the petition as time-barred, successive, and previously adjudicated.
The court denied the petition, holding that the issues raised were either time-barred, procedurally barred as successive, or had been previously raised and were barred by the doctrines of law of the case and res judicata.
[1] Issues raised on direct appeal or that could have been raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from post-conviction relief.
[2] A successive motion for post-conviction relief may be dismissed if it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Successive habeas corpus petitions seeking the same relief are not permitted nor can new claims be raised in a second petition when the circumstances upon which they are based were known or should have been known at the time the prior petition was filed.”
Establishes the bar against successive habeas corpus petitions and new claims in second petitions when facts were known or should have been known earlier.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen was convicted by jury of five counts of armed kidnapping, one count of armed robbery, and one count of armed carjacking. His convictions and sen…
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 Time-Barred Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
[*907] ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The petitioner, Derrick Allen, is before this court based upon the filing of his second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on January 24, 2005, Motion to Amend or Supplement Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on February 7, 2005, second Motion to Amend or Supplement Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on March 28 2005, Renew [sic] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on August 8, 2005, third Motion to Amend or Supplement “Renewed” Petition for Writ of Ha-beas Corpus filed on September 19, 2005, and fourth Motion to Amend or Supplement Renewed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on October 3, 2005. After considering the petition and all of the amendments, including the October 3, 2005 amendment, we deny the petition.
The petitioner’s convictions and sentences, imposed after a jury finding of guilt, for five counts of armed kidnapping, one count of armed robbery, and one count of armed carjacking, were affirmed by this court on July 5, 2001. See Allen v. State, 789 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 828 So. 2d 384 (Fla.2002).
On May 9, 2002, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging two instances of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness, which this court denied on October 15, 2002. Allen v. Moore, 831 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(table).
On January 24, 2005, the instant petition was filed. The instant petition and the amendments which followed allege various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
As we conclude that the issues raised are either time barred, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(4)(B); Partridge v. Moore, 768 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), review denied, 789 So. 2d 347 (Fla.2001); MacArthur v. Moore, 756 So. 2d 232, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); and/or procedurally barred as successive; and/or have been previously raised and are therefore barred by the doctrines of the law of the case and res judicata, we deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. See King v. State, 808 So. 2d 1237 (Fla.2002)(quoting Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So. 2d 106, 109 (Fla.l994))(“Successive habeas corpus petitions seeking the same relief are not permitted nor can new claims be raised in a second petition when the circumstances upon which they are based were known or should have been known at the time the prior petition was filed.”); Isom v. State, 800 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(citing State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984))(law of the case precludes relitigation of all issues necessarily ruled upon by the court); Perez v. State, 767 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Amos Lee King v. State, 808 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2002)
- Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1994)
- Kingsway Condo. Apts. NO. 1, Inc. v. Kingsway Builders, Inc., 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Partridge v. Moore, 768 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Allen v. State, 789 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Isom v. State, 800 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- MacARTHUR v. Moore, 756 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Vasquez v. State, 767 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Braulio H. Perez v. State, 767 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)