ROBERTO RAMOS, 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.
Roberto Ramos appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion for relief under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850, challenging his 1969 marijuana possession conviction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that post-conviction motions cannot be used to factually retry a case.
The trial court properly denied the post-conviction motion. The appellate court found the trial evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the jury verdict, and held that a criminal case cannot be factually retried on a post-conviction motion under CrPR 1.850 with the legal sufficiency of evidence being re-weighed at multiple court levels.
[1] A post-conviction motion under CrPR 1.850 cannot be used to factually retry a criminal case or reweigh the legal sufficiency of the evidence to convict.
[2] An Anders-type brief filed by appointed counsel indicates that counsel has thoroughly reviewed the case and found no non-frivolous appellate arguments.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 academic that a criminal case cannot be factually retried upon a post-conviction motion under CrPR 1.850 and the legal sufficiency of the evidence to convict again weighed, first by the trial Court, and then by the appellate Court”
Establishes the limited scope of post-conviction motions under CrPR 1.850 and prohibits factual retrials on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 11, 1969, Ramos was charged with possession of marijuana. He pleaded not guilty and was tried on July 28, 1969, where a jury found him guilty…
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 Anders Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Roberto Ramos appeals to this Court from an order denying his post-conviction motion for relief filed under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
On March 11, 1969, Ramos was informed against for the offense of possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit, marijuana. Upon plea of not guilty he was tried on July 28, 1969, and was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment accordingly. Thereafter, on May 22, 1970, he filed motion in the trial Court asking that said judgment and sentence be vacated, which motion was denied.
With the aid of the local Public Defender, Ramos has appealed from the order denying his post-conviction motion. The Public Defender has filed in this Court an Anders-type brief setting forth that he “has been unable to come up with any legal argument which could justifiably be made for the contentions raised by the Appellant”, although he had “searched the record in an attempt to find something which could arguably support” such contentions. The Public Defender thereupon suggests that “this is a frivflous appeal”, and asks “leave of the Court to withdraw as attorney of record for the Appellant herein”.
This Court withheld ruling on the said motion to withdraw and ordered a copy of the Public Defender’s brief served upon appellant Ramos, which was done. Ramos was allowed thirty days by this Court within which to file any additional brief calling this Court’s attention to any matters that he felt should be considered in connection with his appeal. On April 7, 1971, within the thirty day period allowed by this Court, Ramos filed his said additional brief wherein he affirmatively abandoned and waived all grounds of his original motion filed under CrPR 1.850 except the insufficiency of the evidence to convict.
We have read the transcript of evidence at the trial, which has been certified to us as a part of this appeal, and find that it is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. Also, it is academic that a criminal case cannot be factually retried upon a post-conviction motion under CrPR 1.850 and the legal sufficiency of the evidence to convict again weighed, first by the trial Court, and then by the appellate Court.
*729The post-conviction motion was therefore properly denied and the order of the trial Court appealed here is accordingly—
Affirmed.
HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glenn v. State, 271 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…So. 189, and while appellant’s later ground might have presented a close question on a direct appeal, it is not now available. The legal sufficiency of the evidence to convict cannot be raised on post-conviction motion. Ramos v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 728. Similarly, the failure to give an instruction is a matter which may be urged only on direct appeal and not in support of a motion for [*24] post-conviction relief. Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 790. Accordingly, the order of the trial…
-
Giamo v. State, 275 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…6 So. 65 (1889). After examining the briefs and hearing oral argument, we affirm the orders entered upon two grounds. First, the matters alleged are not properly the subject of a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR. See Ramos v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 728. Second, the record conclusively refutes appellant’s contention that he was convicted as an aider and abettor. Affirmed.…
-
Johnson v. State, 312 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…peal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Cobbs v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 178; Ramos v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 249 So. 2d 728; Glenn v. State, Fla. App. 1972, 271 So. 2d 23. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted and the order or judgment is hereby affirmed.…