WARREN LEE EDWARDS, 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.
Warren Lee Edwards appeals the dismissal of his postconviction motion challenging the validity of the information filed against him for sending a written threat. He claimed the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to lack of probable cause and ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no fundamental defect in the charging document and the claims were untimely.
The trial court properly dismissed Edwards's postconviction motion because his claims of trial court error cannot be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion, the asserted defects in the information were not fundamental defects depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction, and the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was untimely when raised 13 years after conviction.
[1] A postconviction motion cannot raise claims of trial court error that should have been raised on direct appeal.
[2] A lack of probable cause supporting a charging information does not deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction unless the information is fundamentally defective…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“An information is fundamentally defective only where it totally omits an essential element of the crime or is so vague, indistinct or indefinite that the defendant is misled or exposed to double jeopardy.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining when a charging document is fundamentally defective and can support a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards was convicted and sentenced in 2000 for sending a written threat. In January 2013, he filed a postconviction motion claiming the trial court l…
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 Timeliness Of Postconviction Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Warren Lee Edwards (“Appellant”) appeals a lower court order dismissing his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the motion filed January 2013, Appellant claimed the trial court that convicted and sentenced him in 2000 for sending a written threat lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it failed to ensure that probable cause supported the information filed by the State. He further asserted the information charging him with sending a written threat lacked probable cause because the State Attorney’s Office failed to provide sworn supporting testimony from material witnesses. Appellant also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the charging document’s validity, and claimed this ground for postcon-viction relief was newly discovered because “Defendant did not know the law in order to present it.”
The postconviction court ruled that: (1) to the extent Appellant claimed trial court error, the claim could not be raised in a rule 3.850 motion; (2) to the extent Appellant attacked the validity of the information, the asserted lack of material witness testimony did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was untimely. The court also not*136ed that Appellant has filed “other postcon-viction motions over the years, all of which the Court has denied,” and cautioned Appellant that filing further frivolous pro se pleadings in this criminal case could subject him to sanctions.
We affirm the order dismissing Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. Appellant’s three claims are simply the same claim stated differently. Essentially, Appellant challenges the information filed against him, asserting that it lacked probable cause, which, in turn, deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Normally, a claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. See Waggy v. State, 935 So.2d 571, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Further, a fundamental defect in the information can support a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Carbajal v. State, 75 So.3d 258, 262 (Fla.2011). Not every defect in the charging instrument will render a subsequent conviction void, however. See id. “An information is fundamentally defective only where it totally omits an essential element of the crime or is so vague, indistinct or indefinite that the defendant is misled or exposed to double jeopardy.” State v. Burnette, 881 So.2d 693, 694-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). An objection to any non-fundamental defect in a charging document must be timely made, or the objection is waived. Id. at 694. Because Appellant’s postconviction claim alleged no fundamental defect in the information filed against him, it was untimely made 13 years after conviction. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b). Therefore, the court correctly dismissed Appellant’s motion.
This is the third time Appellant has appealed, to this court, an order denying or dismissing his postconviction filing in which he raised the same lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction claim. We caution Appellant that further frivolous appeals advancing this claim long ago deemed to lack merit may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (“[A]ny citizen, including a citizen attacking his or her conviction, abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims.”); Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a).
AFFIRMED.
VAN NORTWICK, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardman v. Koslowski, 135 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…So. 2d 1297, 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)); Strommen, 927 So. 2d at 179. Second, a lack of subject matter jurisdiction renders a judgment void, “and a void judgment can be attacked at any time, even collaterally.” Strommen, id. Accord, Edwards v. State, 128 So. 3d 134, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Holub v. Holub, 54 So. 3d 585, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Colucci v. Greenfield, 547 So. 2d 224, 225 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Third, an appellate court has an independent duty to recognize a jurisdictional defect even if not…
-
Fravel v. State, 188 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…arguments. Typically, “[a]n information is fundamentally defective only where it-totally omits an essential element of the crime or is so vague, indistinct or indefinite that the defendant is misled or exposed to double jeopardy.” Edwards v. State, 128 So. 3d 134, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting State v. Burnette, 881 So. 2d 693, 694-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). “So-called technical deficiencies, in a charging instrument are waived if the defendant does not raise them before the state rests its case.” Perley v.…
-
Griffin v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…tate, 104 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (table decision); Griffin v. State, 53 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); Henry v. State, 933 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Desmond v. State, 576 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Edwards v. State, 128 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Golfe v. State, 125 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Wilson v. State, 109 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Collins v. - 2 - State, 97 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Johnson v. Office of State Attorney, 987 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th D…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Carbajal v. State, 75 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2011)
- State v. Burnette, 881 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Willette Smith v. State, 935 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Waggy v. State, 935 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)