PHILLIP GENE ADLINGTON, 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.
Phillip Gene Adlington appealed a trial court's summary denial of post-conviction relief relating to the voluntariness of his plea. The court affirmed the denial of claims already addressed in a prior appeal decision, dismissed as premature certain interlocutory orders, and dismissed without prejudice a claim regarding access to charging documents unrelated to the post-conviction proceedings.
The court affirmed the summary denial of the medical treatment-related involuntary plea claim under the law of the case doctrine. The court dismissed as premature the appeals of the three orders denying counsel, interpreter, and transport because the trial court had not yet ruled on the remanded claim. The court dismissed without prejudice the claim regarding charging documents as unrelated to the post-conviction proceedings, but permitted potential mandamus relief.
[1] A claim previously rejected by the trial court and affirmed on appeal is barred by the doctrine of law of the case.
[2] Appeals of trial court orders denying requests for counsel, an interpreter, or transport on remand are premature if the trial court has not yet ruled on the underlying cl…
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 intelligence“Appellant is barred from further relief on the claim of involuntary plea relating to promises of medical treatments by the doctrine of "law of the case."”
Establishes that Adlington cannot relitigate claims already decided in the prior appeal under the law of the case doctrine.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdlington challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea, asserting it was induced by promises of medical treatment and a sentence reduction if he re…
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 Mandamus Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Phillip Gene Adlington appeals a trial court order summarily denying his latest motion for post-conviction relief and three orders preceding it. We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion because it raised the same challenge the trial court had previously rejected and this Court affirmed in Adlington v. State, 931 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), regarding voluntariness of his plea relating to his medical treatment. In Adlington, this Court affirmed the summary denial of the claim of involuntary plea relating to promises of medical treatments, among other claims, but reversed and remanded only for the claim of involuntary plea relating to the length of the sentence and its possible reduction if he returned from furlough on time. Appellant is barred from further relief on the claim of involuntary plea relating to promises of medical treatments by the doctrine of “law of the case.” McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
On the record on appeal and brief filed, appellant has failed to show that the trial court has ruled on the claim returned to the trial court for further consideration in Adlington. For that reason, we dismiss as premature his attempts to appeal the three trial court orders which denied his requests for counsel, an interpreter, and transport on remand. Appellant can challenge them once the trial court has ruled on remand.
Appellant also intends to appeal a separate and apparently unrelated trial court order which denied his motion for a free copy of the charging documents filed against him in connection with his application for executive clemency. We dismiss his challenge to that order, as it has no connection to the post-conviction proceedings being appealed herein, but without prejudice to his right to seek mandamus relief in the circuit court against the clerk of the circuit court if appropriate, for failure to comply with its ministerial duties under Section 940.04, Fla. Stat. Williams v. Circuit Court, 18th Jud. Cir., 862 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). A final order by the circuit court would then be appealable to this Court. See, e.g. Clayton v. State, 849 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Affirmed in Part, Dismissed in Part.
GUNTHER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McBRIDE v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Williams v. Cir. Court, 862 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Clayton v. State, 849 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Asela Ortega v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 849 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Adlington v. State, 931 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)