WILLIAM BEASON MORRISON, 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.
William Morrison appealed the denial of a post-conviction motion to vacate his second-degree murder conviction and sentence filed almost three years after trial. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Morrison failed to adequately allege facts supporting claims of speedy trial violation or ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court held that the speedy trial claim could have been raised on direct appeal and was waived by the failure to do so, and that Morrison failed to allege sufficient factual matters to support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, requiring only conclusory allegations without identifying specific witnesses or questions.
[1] A claim of denial of a speedy trial, if not raised on direct appeal from a conviction, may not be raised in a subsequent motion to vacate judgment and sentence.
[2] A post-conviction motion for relief must allege specific factual matters, not mere conclusions, to be legally sufficient.
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“a post-conviction motion for relief must allege factual matters and not conclusions”
Establishes the pleading requirement for post-conviction motions that Morrison failed to satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorrison was tried and convicted in Polk County Criminal Court of second degree murder and sentenced to state prison. Nearly three years later, he fil…
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
PIERCE, Judge (Ret.).
Appellant William Beason Morrison was tried and convicted in the Polk County Criminal Court of Record of the offense of second degree murder, and was thereupon sentenced to serve a term in the state prison. Almost three years later he filed in the trial court a motion to vacate said judgment and sentence, which motion was denied. He has appealed such denial to this court, and the public defender, appointed to represent Morrison on this appeal, has filed brief in this court in his behalf.
Motion for post-conviction relief raised generally two points, (1) that he was denied a “speedy trial,” and (2) he had the ineffective assistance of counsel.
As to the “speedy trial” contention, such matter could have been raised on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, and having failed so to do, the contention may not now be urged.
As to the other point, that his counsel was ineffective, there is no allegation as to what the ineffectiveness consisted of. A “conflicting interest” was mentioned, but the Court is not advised as to what that conflict was. He complains that his counsel failed to call some “extremely valuable” witnesses and failed to ask certain “pertinent questions” of the witnesses at the trial, but as to who the valuable witnesses were is not stated; likewise the pertinent questions that could have been asked. It is settled law in this state that a post-conviction motion for relief must allege factual matters and not conclusions.
Appellant has failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. As this court stated in Bankston v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 326:
“Success is not the measure of counsel’s effectiveness, and mere errors of judgment as disclosed by subsequent events are not sufficient to establish in effective assistance of counsel; United States v. Hammonds, (1970), 138 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 425 F. 2d 597; United States v. Rosebar, 1972, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 164, 463 F. 2d 1255. The appropriate standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is whether gross incompetence blotted out the essence of a substantial defense; Bruce v. United States, 1967, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336, 379 F. 2d 113; Scott v. United States, 1970, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 339, 427 F. 2d 609.”
For the foregoing reasons, among others, the order denying post-conviction relief was without error, and the same is hereby
Affirmed.
MANN, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 730 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ry With a Firearm, terms of 3 year mandatory cannot be imposed to run “consecutively” because each stems from the same criminal episode. This merely conelusory allegation is facially insufficient for lack of any supporting facts. Morrison v. State, 283 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (post-conviction motion must allege sufficient facts, not mere conclusions). Therefore, the trial court properly denied relief as to this claim. In Ground Three, Appellant alleged that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet was inc…
-
Ballard v. State, 362 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…67 (Fla.1972); Ballard v. State, 323 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Stallings v. State, 319 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Phillips v. State, 313 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Fulford v. State, 311 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Morrison v. State, 283 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Yanks v. State, 273 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Ratliff v. State, 256 So. 2d 262, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Wilcox v. State, 171 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).…
-
Felton Riley v. State, 397 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ns and sentences entered pursuant to guilty pleas. We agree that defendant’s Motion to Vacate filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging the effectiveness of his counsel, was insufficient as a matter of law. Morrison v. State, 283 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). In light of our ruling, we need not address the other questions presented.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bruce v. United States, 379 F.2d 113 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Hammonds, 425 F.2d 597 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
- Scott v. United States, 427 F.2d 609 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
- Bankston v. State, 279 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- United States v. Rosebar, 463 F.2d 1255 (D.C. Cir. 1972)