RAY BLACK CARPENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a defendant's third petition for post-conviction relief, finding that the petition contained substantially the same allegations as previous denied petitions and presented no new grounds for relief.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's third petition for post-conviction relief because it contained substantially the same allegations as previous petitions that had already been denied.
“The third petition, the order which is here under review, contains substantially the same allegations as those contained in the two previous petitions.”
This quote establishes the core reason for the court's decision: the repetitive nature of the appellant's claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to rape after initially pleading not guilty. He subsequently filed three successive petitions fo…
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 Petition For Post Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse order on his petition, filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
Appellant was originally indicted and arraigned on a charge of rape. The first plea was not guilty. ' This was subsequently changed to a guilty plea, while represented by counsel. This is the third successive petition for post conviction relief that the appellant has filed. The denial of the second of these was reviewed by this court and affirmed in Carpenter v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 99. The third petition, the order which is here under review, contains substantially the same allegations as those contained in the two previous petitions. We find no error in the trial judge’s denial of this last petition and, therefore, we affirm his action. See: Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 324.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Johnson v. Town OF Eatonville, 203 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…y substantiation in the record as .to the correctness of the label. It is the responsibility and the duty of the petitioner to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 610; Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 668; Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 260. Petitioner has failed to supply a sufficient record. Certiorari denied. WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., and WADDELL, THOMAS R.…
-
S. Fla. Apt. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dansyear, 347 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ubstance of the testimony at the time of the trial in this cause. Fla.App. Rule 3.6 h. It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Gleim v. Gleim, 176 So. 2d 610 (Fla.3d DCA 1965) and cases collected. In the absence of such a trial record, we find it impossible to determine whether the evidence at trial established the defense of the statute of frauds as a matter of law. This court, accordingly, has no alter…
-
Conlee Constr. Co. v. CAY Constr. Co., 221 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…elling. It is the responsibility and the duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 664; Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 610; Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So. 2d 668. Without the supersedeas bond or a copy thereof, this court cannot determine the extent and terms of the surety’s obligation. Thus we have no alternative but to affirm the determination of the lowe…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rankin v. State, 168 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Govoni v. Blackwell, 167 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Manning v. State, 167 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Collins v. State, 168 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Carpenter v. State, 168 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)