JAMES BROWN, 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.
Appellant Brown challenged his armed robbery conviction through a post-conviction motion to vacate, claiming his conviction should be overturned. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding that the grounds Brown raised were not properly cognizable under post-conviction relief procedures.
The court held that the matters asserted in Brown's motion to vacate were not properly within the purview of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, and post-conviction proceedings are not a substitute for direct appeal. The trial court correctly denied relief as the issues raised were not cognizable under Criminal Rule 1.850.
“Post-conviction proceedings are generally not a substitute for a timely appeal. Nor do such proceedings have as their purpose a second appeal.”
Establishes the limited scope of post-conviction relief and distinguishes it from appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was convicted by jury of robbing Walter's Five and Ten Store in Jacksonville. He was identified by two female employees as one of three men invo…
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 Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of an order entered by the trial court denying appellant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence imposed upon his being found guilty of robbery by a jury.
The crime which the jury ascribed to the appellant was the robbery of Walter’s Five and Ten Store, 303 Broad Street in Jacksonville. During the course of the trial, appellant was identified by two ladies who were working in the store at the time of the robbery. Appellant was one of three men who were thus implicated.
The appellant’s conviction was affirmed by this court on an earlier occasion, Brown v. State, 197 So.2d 853 (1967).
The points asserted in support of appellant’s motion to vacate are without merit. Such matters are not properly within the purview of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence. Devlin v. State, 192 So.2d 786 (Fla.App.1966).
Post-conviction proceedings are generally not a substitute for a timely appeal. Nor do such proceedings have as their purpose a second appeal. There is a significant distinction between the matters which can be considered by an appellate court on a direct appeal and the matters which constitute grounds for relief in post-conviction proceedings under Criminal Rule 1.850 (formerly Criminal Rule 1), 33 Florida Statutes Annotated. Austin v. State, 160 So.2d 730 (Fla.App.1964).
Criminal Rule 1.850 is substantially the same as its federal counterpart, Section 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. The federal cases brought under Section 2255 have adhered to the same distinction between matters which may be considered on direct appeal and those which may be raised in post-conviction proceedings. A representative group of such federal cases are cited in Austin v. State, supra, and are deserving of the attention of those prisoners who prepare their own motions to vacate under Criminal Rule 1.850.
Inasmuch as the matters raised by appellant’s motion are not properly cognizable under the subject rule, the trial judge cor*528rectly denied the relief sought by appellant and the said order of denial is therefore
Affirmed.
CARROLL, Donald K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferby v. State, 404 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…udgment following the trial of this case, Ferby v. State, 381 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and are not matters which are proper grounds for ancillary post-conviction relief. See Powell v. State, 244 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Brown v. State, 227 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), appeal dismissed, 237 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1970). Included in this category is appellant’s complaint about rulings of the trial judge relating to the admissibility of certain evidence, see, e.g., Nelson v. State, 281 So. 2d 49 (Fla.…
-
Heilmann v. State, 310 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…2d 299. A rule 3.850 proceeding, however, is a collateral proceeding, independent of the original prosecution. Courts have long recognized that such collateral remedies are no substitute for a direct appeal. E.g., Brown v. State, Fla.App.1st 1969, 227 So. 2d 527. Where, as here, the sentence is legal when imposed and no direct appeal is taken, the case is no longer “pending” for purposes of applying a statutory change in procedures or remedies. To hold otherwise would seriously undermine the judicial system…
-
Glimmert Beckham v. State, 353 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Thomas v. State, 206 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Brown v. State, 227 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Kish v. State, 253 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Phillips v. State, 313 So. 2d 428 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Devlin v. State, 192 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Brown v. State, 197 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)