TERRENCE J. KERRIN, 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.
Terrence Kerrin appealed the trial court's denial of his postconviction relief motion, which raised eight claims under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of his double jeopardy claim, holding that such claims are cognizable in Rule 3.850 motions, while affirming the denial of his remaining claims.
The court held that double jeopardy claims are cognizable in Rule 3.850 motions and that the trial court improperly summarily denied Kerrin's double jeopardy claim. The court reversed and remanded that claim for further proceedings while affirming the trial court's denial of the remaining claims.
[1] Double jeopardy claims are cognizable in motions for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[2] A trial court improperly summarily denies a postconviction relief claim when the claim is cognizable under rule 3.850.
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 intelligence“This determination was improper, as double jeopardy claims are cognizable in rule 3.850 motions.”
Establishes the core holding that double jeopardy claims cannot be summarily dismissed from postconviction relief motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKerrin was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, armed home invasion robbery, armed burglary of a dwelling, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery…
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 Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the motion, Appellant raised eight claims for relief. The trial court granted an evidentiary hearing as to claims one, two, and three, and summarily denied the remaining claims. Because the trial court improperly summarily denied claim five based on double jeopardy, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s order as to the remaining claims without further comment.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree murder, one count of armed home invasion robbery, one count of armed burglary of a dwelling, and one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on counts I — III and 25 years’ imprisonment on count IV. On September 6, 2007, Appellant filed a motion for postcon-viction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
In claim five of his motion, Appellant alleged that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his convictions for armed home invasion robbery and armed burglary of a dwelling violate the principles of double jeopardy. The trial court determined that double jeopardy claims are not cognizable in motions for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and summarily denied the claim. This determination was improper, as double jeopardy claims are cognizable in rule 3.850 motions. See State v. Williams, 854 So.2d 215, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Rudolf v. State, 851 So.2d 839, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Damon v. State, 718 So.2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Further, at least one district court has held that dual convictions for armed home invasion robbery and armed burglary violate the principles of double jeopardy. See Perez v. State, 951 So.2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see generally Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla.2009) (discussing the prevailing standards for addressing allegations of double jeopardy violations).
As such, where the trial court improperly summarily denied Appellant’s double jeopardy claim, we reverse and remand.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levin v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Nassau County) (M.D. Fla. 2024)…d under Florida law, double jeopardy claims may be raised in Rule 3.850 proceedings. See, e.g., Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061, 1065 (Fla. 1994) (“[A] double jeopardy claim may be raised in a post-conviction relief proceeding."); Kerrin v. State, 8 So. 3d 395, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ("Double jeopardy claims are cognizable in rule 3.850 motions."). Thus, the ¹² In a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Petitioner argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to…
-
Booker v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Nassau County) (M.D. Fla. 2021)…dant moves for a mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial unless “the conduct 8 Double Jeopardy claims are cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Kerrin v. State, 8 So. 3d 395, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). However, any such motion would be untimely at this point. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b). giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.” Id. at 679. H…
-
Renford v. Inch (S.D. Fla. 2022)…undamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal”). And, even if he’d failed to do that, Renford still could have asserted his double-jeopardy contentions in a postconviction motion under FLA. R. CRIM. P. 3850. See Kerrin v. State, 8 So. 3d 395, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[D]ouble jeopardy claims are cognizable in rule 3.850 motions.”); Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“[A] violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental error, which can be pres…
Authorities Cited
- Eli Enrique Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009)
- Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Global Trading Agency, Inc. v. City Nat'l Bank Corp., 854 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Perez v. State, 951 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Sutton v. State, 854 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Sills v. State, 718 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)