EDDIE FRANKLIN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of defendant's second Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, holding that the claims were procedurally barred as successive because they could have been raised in the first motion.
A successive Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief may be dismissed as procedurally barred if the claims could have been raised in a prior motion and constitute an abuse of the procedure.
[1] A successive Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief may be dismissed as procedurally barred if the grounds could have been raised in a prior motion and no new or di…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie Franklin filed a second motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which the trial court denied.…
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 Abuse Of Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The defendant, Eddie Franklin, appeals the denial of his second motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Based upon the trial court’s thorough order and record attachments, we affirm finding that the claims raised could have been raised in the defendant’s first motion for postconviction relief, and are, therefore, procedurally barred, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(“A second or successive motion may be dismissed if the judge finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the movant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure governed by these rules.”); Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199 (Fla.2002)(holding that a successive 3.850 motion can be denied on the ground that it is an abuse of process, if there is no reason why the issue could not have been raised in a previous motion); Scrambling v. State, 919 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)(holding that defendant’s 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the “defendant’s current rule 3.850 motion is one that could have or should have been raised in his first rule 3.850 motion”); Eloisaint v. State, 868 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), and are additionally without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bond v. State, 931 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ised or could have been raised in the defendant’s prior 3.850 motions, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the instant motion. See Zeigler v. State, 632 So. 2d 48, 51 (Fla. 1993); Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455, 458 (Fla.1992); Franklin v. State, 923 So. 2d 1199, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Ragan v. State, 643 So. 2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Affirmed.…
-
Joseph v. State, 976 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…tate, 820 So. 2d 199, 205 (Fla.2002) (holding that a successive rule 3.850 motion can be denied as an abuse of process where the defendant failed to raise the issue in his previous motion for postconviction relief without reason); Franklin v. State, 923 So. 2d 1199, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding that the claims raised could have been raised in the defendant’s first motion for postconviction relief, and were, therefore, procedurally barred). Affirmed. . Joseph claims his trial counsel was deficient in fail…
-
Marsh v. State, 932 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Franklin v. State, 923 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2002)
- Roque v. State, 919 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Magela Eloisaint v. State, 868 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Levert v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 868 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)