TRACEY MACKEY, 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.
Tracey Mackey appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a key witness. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reverses the trial court's denial of the ineffective assistance claim as successive, holding that because the original motion was reversed on facial insufficiency rather than decided on the merits, the amended motion raising the same claim is not properly considered successive.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of the key witness ineffective assistance claim as successive, holding that because the original motion was reversed based on facial insufficiency and not on the merits, the amended motion's inclusion of the same claim cannot be treated as successive. The court remanded for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A successive post-conviction relief motion may not be dismissed if the prior determination was not on the merits.
[2] A prior denial of a post-conviction relief motion based on legal insufficiency does not bar a successive motion on the same grounds.
Previewing 2 of 4 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] successive motion that raises the same grounds as a prior motion may not be dismissed if those grounds were not previously adjudicated on their merits.”
Establishes the core legal rule governing when a motion can be properly dismissed as successive.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMackey filed an original Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel's failu…
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 Facial Insufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Tracey Mackey, appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. In his amended motion, he raised four claims, one of which was that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness who would have offered key testimony supporting his defense at trial. The trial court denied this claim, reasoning that it was successive. On appeal, Appellant argues this was error. We agree and reverse as to that claim only. We otherwise affirm.
The record reflects that the trial court summarily denied Appellant's original rule 3.850 motion (the "original motion") on the merits, after addressing this same claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the key witness. Appellant appealed that denial, and this court reversed, finding that his original motion was facially insufficient, and that Appellant was entitled to an opportunity to amend. Mackey v. State , 219 So.3d 1009, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). On remand, Appellant filed the instant amended motion for postconviction relief.
Although the trial court denied Appellant's original motion on the merits, this court reversed that order based on the facial insufficiency of Appellant's motion, providing Appellant the opportunity to file an amended motion. Thus, the original motion was not decided on the merits, and therefore Appellant's key witness claim in the amended motion cannot be considered. See Crescenzo v. State , 987 So.2d 150, 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("[A] successive motion that raises the same grounds as a prior motion may not be dismissed if those grounds were not previously adjudicated on their merits." (citation omitted) ); see *505also Rosenkrantz v. Hall , 172 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) ("[A]n order which is reversed must be treated as though the order had never been rendered." (citing, inter alia , S. Fla. Lumber & Supply Co. v. Read , 65 Fla. 61, 61 So. 125 (1913) ) ). Further, we find that the amended motion is facially sufficient as to this claim. We therefore reverse the summary denial and remand for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting Appellant's key witness claim, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm as to Appellant's other claims.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
TORPY, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacKey v. State, 251 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…f appeal to this court. In Mackey v. State , 219 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this court reversed the summary denial of Mackey's postconviction motion and instructed the lower court to afford Mackey the opportunity to amend. In Mackey v. State , 236 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), this court affirmed the denial, after amendment, of Mackey's motion on all grounds except Ground Two, which alleged that Mackey's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a particular witness who would have afforded tes…
-
Mackey v. State, 251 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…f appeal to this court. In Mackey v. State, 219 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this court reversed the summary denial of Mackey’s postconviction motion and instructed the lower court to afford Mackey the opportunity to amend. In Mackey v. State, 236 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), this court affirmed the denial, after amendment, of Mackey’s motion on all grounds except Ground Two, which alleged that Mackey’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a particular witness who would have afforded te…
Authorities Cited
- S. Fla. Lumber & Supply Co. v. Payton R. Read, 65 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1913)
- State v. Wiecking, 65 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1913)
- Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 172 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Dino K. Crescenzo v. State, 987 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- MacKey v. State, 219 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Hogan v. State, 219 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)