ALBERT STAFFORD
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 4th DCA | 2018-12-05
No. 13-1532
Reavley, Owen, Elrod
259 So. 3d 881 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2018)

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.

Synopsis

Appellant appealed a trial court's denial of a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The Fourth District Court of Appeal initially reversed and remanded for resentencing based on Atwell v. State, but subsequently withdrew that opinion after the Florida Supreme Court quashed a related decision in State v. Michel and clarified that Atwell was no longer good law.


Holding

The court affirmed the trial court's summary denial of Appellant's postconviction relief motion. The court withdrew its prior opinion that had relied on Atwell v. State and instead applied the controlling law as clarified by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Michel.


Headnotes

[1] A Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief may be summarily denied where the movant does not demonstrate a substantial question of whether the sentences imposed violat…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Key Quotes

“Atwell is no longer good law”

The court stated that Atwell was no longer good law following the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in Franklin v. State.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought postconviction relief under Rule 3.850 in a criminal case from 1993. The trial court summarily denied the motion. The specific factua…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Lynn Rosenthal, Judge; L.T. Case No. 93-18389 CF10B.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF MANDATE PER CURIAM.

We initially issued an opinion in this case reversing the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief and remanding for resentencing pursuant to Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). We cited our opinion in Michel v. State, 204 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and certified conflict with Stallings v. State, 198 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) and Williams v. State, 198 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Thereafter, we granted a stay of mandate pending the disposition of the conflict. The Florida Supreme Court subsequently quashed our opinion in Michel. See State v. Michel, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S298 (Fla. July 12, 2018). Appellant has now filed a motion to lift the stay of mandate and reinstate our opinion following the dictates of Atwell. In response, the State requests that we withdraw our Michel opinion and affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief.

We agree with the State and now lift our stay of mandate and withdraw our prior opinion in the instant case. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief pursuant to the supreme court’s opinion in Michel. See also Franklin v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S556 (Fla. Nov. 8, 2018) (reaffirming that Atwell is no longer good law and that Franklin’s three 1,000-year concurrent sentences with the possibility of parole did not violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)).

Prior opinion withdrawn; affirmed. CIKLIN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw