RONNIE CARTER, 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.
Carter appealed an order denying his motion for rehearing on a post-conviction relief petition (Rule 1.850), challenging a robbery conviction. The court affirmed, holding that orders denying rehearing motions are non-appealable and that issues already decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated through post-conviction relief.
Orders denying motions for rehearing are non-appealable. Additionally, questions already considered and disposed of on direct appeal of a judgment of conviction cannot be used as grounds for post-conviction relief under Rule 1.850, and challenges to the validity of arrest are impermissible grounds for such relief.
[1] An order denying a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is not an appealable order.
[2] Questions previously considered and decided on a direct appeal of a judgment of conviction and sentence will not be considered as grounds for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is well settled that a proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule #1, F. S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, is civil rather than criminal in nature... An order denying appellant's petition for rehearing is not an appealable order.”
Establishes that post-conviction relief proceedings are civil in nature and orders denying rehearing are non-appealable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter was charged with robbery, tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced. He appealed his conviction and sentence, which this court affirmed. Within t…
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 Appealability Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review by direct appeal of an order denying his motion for rehearing and reconsideration. No appeal has been taken from the final order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.850, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., to which the points in his brief are directed.
It has long been the established law of this state that an order denying a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is nonap-pealable and not subject to appellate review. In Lett v. State1 the Second District Court of Appeal said:
“It is well settled that a proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule #1, F. S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, is civil rather than criminal in nature. See State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892. Therefore, the rules governing the appealability of orders and judgments under Criminal Procedure Rule # 1 are delineated by the Florida Appellate Rules. An order denying appellant’s petition for rehearing is not an appealable order. See Florida Living for the Retired, Inc. v. Retirement Hotel Associates, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 83; Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings & Loan Association of Lakeland, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So.2d 603, and cases cited therein.”
Since appellee has not raised the insufficiency of the notice of appeal nor claimed prejudice as a result thereof, we will ignore the error and proceed to a consideration of the merits of the appeal.2
Appellant was charged, tried by a jury, convicted and sentenced for the offense of robbery. He appealed his judgment of conviction and sentence which resulted in an affirmance by this court.3 Within less *738than three months following the going down of our mandate, this proceeding for post-conviction relief was filed in the trial court and was terminated by the rendition of a final order denying the relief sought.
By his brief filed in the case sub judice appellant presents five points for consideration. Four of these points were raised, considered, and decided adversely to appellant in the original appeal of his judgment of conviction and sentence. Questions which have been considered and disposed of on a direct appeal of a judgment of conviction and sentence will not be considered as grounds for post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 1.850, Rules of Criminal Procedure.4
The . remaining point in appellant’s brief presents a question which is being urged for the first time on appeal. In addition, it deals exclusively with the validity of his arrest, an impermissible ground for challenge in a motion for post-conviction relief.5
The judgment appealed herein is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gore v. State, 260 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…ry. We have previously considered and ruled upon the same issue raised in appellant’s motion to vacate in our review of the direct appeal of this cause. Gore v. State, 237 So. 2d 243 (Fla.App. 1st, 1970). As stated by this Court in Carter v. State, 242 So. 2d 737, at 738 (Fla.App. 1st, 1970): “Questions which have been considered and disposed of on a direct appeal of a judgment of conviction and sentence will not be considered as grounds for post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 1.850, Rules of Cri…
-
Cole v. State, 905 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…appeals a non-appealablé order, which issued on January 6, 2005, and denied the Appellant’s motion for rehearing. Because the motion for rehearing is not subject to appellate review, this Court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Carter v. State, 242 So. 2d 737, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Fla.R.App.9.110(b). To the extent the Appellant argues that he is appealing the underlying order, his motion for rehearing was not timely filed within'15 days of the trial court’s order and, thus, did not delay rendition of…
-
Zide v. State, 253 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…facts that were argued and considered on direct appeal under a point directed to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Matters raised and disposed of on direct appeal cannot be a basis for post-conviction relief. Carter v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So. 2d 737. His last point states, “does the right of an accused to be confronted with the witnesses against attach before the trial”. The vagueness of this point suggests its failure. The claim is without merit as it is supported only by conclusions of law a…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Marti v. State, 163 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Dirring v. United States, 370 F.2d 862 (1st Cir. 1967)
- Eggers v. Narron, 238 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1970)
- Oxford v. Polk Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Lakeland, 147 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Fla. Living FOR THE Retired, Inc. v. Ret. Hotel Assocs., Inc., 167 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Chavigny v. State, 163 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Gissendanner v. State, 241 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1970)
- Lett v. State, 195 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Carter v. State, 231 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)