RECARDO CLAYTON, 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 motion was successive and duplicative, justifying summary denial without an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant filed a second motion for post-conviction relief after previous motions were denied. The current motion raised claims that were largely …
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 Process cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(a). We affirm because the motion is successive.
Clayton was convicted and sentenced after a jury trial on July 7, 2006, which was affirmed on February 20, 2008. See Clayton v. State, 974 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Clayton then filed a post-conviction relief motion, which was considered on May 20, 2008, and denied without an evidentiary hearing. Clayton appealed and on November 5, 2008, we issued our opinion, affirming. See Clayton v. State, 994 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Clayton then filed a second 3.850 motion, which was summarily denied.
We conclude that three of the four claims that Clayton raised were successive and duplicative. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in summarily denying them without an evidentiary hearing. With regard to claim number four, Clayton claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a material eye witness that would have testified as to what happened at the store at the time of the theft on the date in question. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[A] second or successive motion for postconviction relief can be denied on the ground that it is an abuse of process if there is no reason for failing to raise the issues in the previous motion.” Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 199, 205 (Fla.2002), citing Pope v. State, 702 So.2d 221, 223 (Fla.1997). See also Leunne v. State, 981 So.2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Scrambling v. State, 919 So.2d 671, 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the issue raised in the pending rule 3.850 motion was one that could or should have been raised in the earlier rule 3.850 motion). Clayton has not alleged any reason why this ground was not raised in his prior 3.850 motion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Recardo Clayton v. State, 176 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…yton has filed eight petitions or motions for post-conviction relief, including the current petition.1 As [*304] early as 2010, we observed that several claims in Clayton’s underlying 3.850 motion were “successive and duplicative.” Clayton v. State, 34 So. 3d 214, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (Mem). Essentially, Clayton has insisted that his trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a new trial in the wake of the jury determining that he did not use a firearm in the commission of the robbeiy. One element of t…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2002)
- Pope v. State, 702 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1997)
- Roque v. State, 919 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Recardo Clayton v. State, 974 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Black v. Jacobs, 974 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Gomez v. State, 994 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Recardo Clayton v. State, 994 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Bailey v. State, 981 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Leunne v. State, 981 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)