JIMMY LEE HARRIS A/K/A JIMMY LEE BARNES, 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 defendant's claims regarding the use of a deadly weapon were previously raised and rejected, thus affirming the denial of his postconviction relief motion.
[1] A claim raised and rejected in an earlier postconviction motion is procedurally barred in a subsequent postconviction motion.
[2] A defendant cannot relitigate issues that were previously presented and decided in a prior postconviction motion.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing insufficient evidence of a deadly weapon during a sexual battery. This claim had been …
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
Jimmy Lee Harris appeals the denial of a rule 3.850(b) motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
In the defendant’s present 3.850(b) motion, he raises two issues, which are essentially the same issue. First, he contends that there was no evidence at trial which showed that a deadly weapon was used during the commission of the sexual battery. Second, he contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to establish that a deadly weapon was used during the commission of the sexual battery. As we conclude that this issue has been previously raised and rejected by this court, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the instant motion.
In his present 3.850 motion, the defendant summarizes the numerous postconviction motions which he has filed since 1978, and the disposition of each motion. He claims that on October 27, 2004, he filed a 3.800(a) motion, arguing, in part, that his sentence of thirty years in prison “at hard labor” was illegal as a matter of law, and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he used a deadly weapon during the commission of the sexual battery.
The trial court denied this motion, and the defendant appealed.
On May 25, 2004, this court issued an opinion reversing the “hard labor” portion of his sentence, but affirming the remainder of the defendant’s 3.800 motion, finding that there was “no merit to appellant’s remaining challenges .... ” Harris v. State, 902 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
As it is clear that the issues raised in the defendant’s present motion have been previously addressed and rejected by this court, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s present 3.850 motion. See Downs v. State, 740 So. 2d 506, 518 n. 10 (Fla.1999)(claims raised in an earlier postconviction motion, are procedurally barred in subsequent postconviction motions); Atkins v. State, 663 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla.1995)(explaining that issues that were presented in a post-conviction motion cannot be relitigated in a subsequent postconviction motion).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Downs v. State, 740 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1999)
- Atkins v. State, 663 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1995)
- Harris v. State, 902 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)