FREDERICK PARKS, 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.
Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief petition where appellant failed to raise issues properly cognizable under Florida's post-conviction relief procedure, which is not a second appeal.
A petition for post-conviction relief under CrPR 3.850 must set forth facts impairing fundamental fairness or denying specific constitutional protection, and cannot serve as a second appeal.
[1] Post-conviction relief proceedings under CrPR 3.850 are not a second appeal and require allegations of facts impairing fundamental fairness or denying specific constituti…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of rape after jury trial, his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and he filed a third petition for post-conviction reli…
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 Constitutional Protections cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was found guilty of rape after a jury trial. The judgment was affirmed upon appeal. See Parks v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 431. This appeal is from a denial of appellant’s third petition for relief pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. Appellant’s petition for relief alleges that he did not receive a fair trial because of: (1) remarks of the state’s attorney which were not supported by the evidence, (2) remarks of the state’s attorney designed to arouse racial prejudice in the jury, (3) the failure of the trial court to sever appellant’s trial from that of the other defendants even though appellant’s privately employed counsel failed to move for a severance.
We hold that appellant’s petition fails to raise an issue which is properly to be considered upon a petition pursuant to CrPR 3.850. The proceedings provided in CrPR 3.850 are not a second appeal. Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 427; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 27; Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506. Appellant has been afforded a full review of his trial and a petition which does not set forth facts impairing the fundamental fairness of the trial or the denial of specific constitutional protection is properly denied. Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; Cade v. Balkcom, 361 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1966).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Al Featherston v. State, 301 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…the authority of e. g., Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So. 2d 730; Conyers v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 616; Nelson v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So. 2d 533; Peterson v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 237 So. 2d 223; Parks v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 256 So. 2d 40.…
-
McNAMARA v. State, 284 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…rett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 714. Secondly, that he was deprived of a fair trial, because of such improper or ineffective representation by his counsel at trial. We find no merit in the latter contention. See Parks v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 40. The judgments are affirmed.…
-
Parks v. State, 261 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 256 So. 2d 40. CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marti v. State, 163 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Parks v. State, 206 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Napoleon C. Mitchell v. State, 167 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Wilcox v. State, 171 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Cade v. Balkcom, 361 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1966)