DERRICK BARRETT
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court may summarily deny a successive motion for post-conviction relief raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims when an initial motion already raised such claims.
[1] A criminal defendant may not relitigate procedurally barred claims by reframing them as ineffective assistance of counsel in a successive post-conviction motion.
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“Where an initial motion for post-conviction relief raises the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court may summarily deny a successive motion which raises additional grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Card v. Dugger, 512 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1987)
Derrick Barrett filed a successive motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising additional grounds for ine…
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 Procedurally Barred Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Card v. Dugger, 512 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1987) (“Where an initial motion for post-conviction relief raises the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court may summarily deny a successive motion which raises additional grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel.”) (citing Christopher v. State, 489 So. 2d 22, 24 (Fla. 1986)); Mathis v. State, 419 So. 2d 774, 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“Mathis raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a previous 3.850 motion which he failed to timely appeal, resulting in its dismissal. He is, therefore, precluded from raising this issue again.”); see also Arbelaez v. State, 775 So. 2d 909, 915 (Fla. 2000) (holding that a criminal defendant “may not relitigate procedurally barred claims by couching them in terms of ineffective assistance of counsel”) (citing Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331, 1336 n.6 (Fla. 1997)).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1997)
- Card v. Dugger, 512 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1987)