LUIS M. HARRIS, 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.
Harris appeals the trial court's denial of his post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel motion under Florida Rule 3.850. The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court's ruling but reversed and remanded regarding three new claims of ineffective assistance by sentencing counsel that the trial court summarily denied without proper consideration.
The court held that Harris was entitled to have the trial court rule on his amended rule 3.850 motion because it was filed before the trial court entered a ruling on the original motion and within the two-year time limit. Three of the four new claims were non-successive and therefore required proper consideration, while the fourth was properly dismissed as successive.
[1] An amended motion for post-conviction relief must be considered by the trial court if filed before a ruling on the original motion, within the time limit, and if it does…
[2] Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to move to recuse a judge are not successive.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A defendant is entitled to have the trial court rule on an amended rule 3.850 motion when the motion is filed before the date that the trial court enters a ruling on the merits of the defendant's original motion, provided that the amended motion was filed within the rule's two-year time limit and does not raise successive claims.”
Establishes the standard for when amended post-conviction motions must be considered by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris filed a post-conviction motion under rule 3.850 seeking relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He subsequently filed an Addendum/Am…
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 Successive Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, C.J.
Luis Harris (defendant) appeals the final order entered by the trial court denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the trial court’s ruling in all respects, except one.
The defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by summarily denying his “Addendum/Amended Ground VI on Defendant’s 3.850 Motion Alternatively, Request for Reconsideration” because the motion contained four new claims of ineffective assistance of counsel against his sentencing counsel. The defendant argues that the claims were new claims and, therefore, the trial court was required to either grant an evidentiary hearing on the claims or attach record documents that would demonstrate that the new claims were meritless. We agree. Our courts have consistently ruled that a defendant is entitled to have the trial court rule on an amended rule 3.850 motion when the motion is filed before the date that the trial court enters a ruling on the merits of the defendant’s original motion, provided that the amended motion was filed within the rule’s two-year time limit and does not raise successive claims. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1999); Smith v. State, 987 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Oxendine v. State, 824 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Applying this case law to the instant facts, we conclude that this matter must be remanded to the trial court for consideration of three of the four claims set forth in the defendant’s “Addendum Motion”. In that regard, three of the four claims were not successive: the claims alleging ineffectiveness due to sentencing counsel’s (1) failure to move to recuse Judge Pig-gotte, (2) failure to move for reconsideration of the denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, and (3) failure to move to redact portions of the defendant’s pre-sentence investigation report. The fourth claim was successive since it alleged the same claim of ineffectiveness relating to sentencing counsel’s failure to object to the defendant’s alleged vindictive sentence as was raised in the defendant’s initial rule 3.850 motion.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, J., and LAUTEN, F„ Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)
- Chutney Gerard Oxendine v. State, 824 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Smith v. State, 987 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Matthews v. State, 987 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)