JAMES HOPPERT, 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.
James Hoppert appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support his burglary conviction. The court affirmed the denial, holding that insufficiency of evidence claims are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 postconviction motion and must be raised on direct appeal.
Claims of insufficiency of evidence are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 postconviction motion and must be raised on direct appeal. The postconviction court properly denied the motion, though it should have done so on the ground that insufficiency claims are not available in rule 3.850 proceedings rather than on the merits.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction.
[2] Claims of insufficiency of evidence are not cognizable in a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief and should be raised on direct appeal.
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“claims of insufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion and should be raised on direct appeal”
Establishes the primary holding that insufficiency claims must be raised on direct appeal, not in postconviction proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoppert was convicted of burglary of an occupied structure after he entered a public women's restroom and photographed a victim in a stall using his c…
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 Burglary Of An Occupied Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
James Hoppert appeals the posteonviction court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Hoppert claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for burglary of an occupied structure and that it only supported a conviction for the lesser offense of burglary of an unoccupied structure. Hoppert directly challenges his conviction under section 810.02(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2007); therefore his motion is improper as a motion to correct illegal sentence. Because Hoppert’s motion is timely filed and properly sworn under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the postconviction court should have analyzed it as such. Hettick v. State, 977 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Nevertheless, we affirm the denial of Hoppert’s motion.
In his motion for postconviction relief, Hoppert alleges that the public women’s restroom he burglarized was unoccupied because each stall is a structure of its own and the victim did not exit her stall until after Hoppert had exited the restroom. The postconviction court found that Hop-pert’s motion was without merit because the restroom was occupied when Hoppert entered the women’s restroom and photographed the victim with his cell phone camera by reaching under the stall. While the postconviction court was correct in denying Hoppert’s motion, it should have done so on the ground that claims of insufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion and should be raised on direct appeal. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(a); Savage v. State, 832 So.2d 807, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that an argument establishing an affirmative defense to burglary was a direct appeal issue and not cognizable in a rule 3.850 proceeding); Jackson v. State, 640 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“[I]t is well-settled that insufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised under rule 3.850[.]”).
We affirm the postconviction court’s order on the basis that relief was not available even if the motion had been appropriately considered pursuant to rule 3.850.
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoppert v. State, 201 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 786 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.2001); McDonald v. State, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Hoppert v. State, 68 So. 3d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Hoppert v. State, 25 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table decision); Doby v. State, 25 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Sav…
-
Tramel v. Florida Attorney General (Duval County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)…see Smith v. State, 41 So. 3d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“claims of insufficient evidence have long been held to be procedurally barred in collateral proceedings”). A defendant must raise these matters on direct appeal. Hoppert v. State, 68 So. 3d 382, 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Defendant’s claims all include language as to insufficient evidence a claim properly raised on direct appeal. Defendant’s claim is not cognizable under rule 3.850, and is, therefore, procedurally barred. The D…
Authorities Cited
- Bailey v. State, 640 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Hettick v. State, 977 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Savage v. State, 832 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)