JAMES DUPREE HENRY, 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.
James Dupree Henry appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising twenty issues. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that most issues were properly foreclosed as they should have been raised on direct appeal, and rejecting Henry's claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and the arbitrary application of Florida's death penalty.
The court held that most issues raised in the post-conviction motion were properly foreclosed because they should have been raised on direct appeal. Although Henry's contention regarding arbitrary application of the death penalty could properly be raised in post-conviction relief, the trial court properly refused relief because it was a hypothetical, unsupported argument without preliminary factual basis. The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected as lacking merit.
[1] Issues that were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal are generally foreclosed from consideration in a proceeding for post-conviction relief.
[2] A contention that the death penalty is unconstitutionally applied in Florida based on arbitrary factors can properly be raised in a proceeding for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“except for the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, all the issues either were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal”
Establishes the trial court's basis for dismissing most of Henry's post-conviction claims under the rule that issues not raised on direct appeal are generally foreclosed from post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Dupree Henry filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising twenty issues related to his tria…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a denial of James Dupree Henry’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Henry raised, and now seeks review of, twenty issues relating to his trial and original appeal.
The circuit court judge ruled that, except for the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, all the issues either were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal. As to all but one of these rulings, the trial court properly determined that the matters presented may not be attacked in a proceeding for post-conviction relief. Sullivan v. State, 372 So. 2d 938 (Fla.1979). The one issue which was improperly ruled to be foreclosed was Henry’s contention that the death penalty is unconstitutionally applied in Florida because it “is imposed in an arbitrary, capricious and irrational manner in Florida based on geography [namely Orange County, Florida], poverty, and other arbitrary factors.” This contention can properly be raised as a subject for consideration in a proceeding for post-conviction relief. We hold, however, that the trial court’s refusal to conduct a hearing or grant other relief on this issue was proper under the circumstances. The hypothetical, unsupported argument of counsel has been rejected as a legal basis for relief in Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F. 2d 582, 613-14 [*DCCLXXIII] (5th Cir. 1978), cert denied, 440 U.S. 976, 99 S.Ct. 1548, 59 L.Ed.2d 796 (1979), and no preliminary factual basis for the contention was presented to the trial judge in this case.
The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and concluded that the evidence and argument presented to support the assertion lacked merit. Having reviewed that evidence and those arguments, we conclude that the trial court correctly rejected Henry’s assertion.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying Henry’s 3.850 motion is affirmed, and Henry’s motion for stay of execution is denied.
Due to the exigencies of this case, we dispense with rehearing.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1980)…sition in the State of Florida. All except two of the foregoing issues were or could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore are foreclosed in this proceeding for collateral review. Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1980). Henry v. State, 377 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1979); Sullivan v. State, 372 So. 2d 938 (Fla.1979). The two grounds cognizable for collateral attack here are the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and racial discrimination in capital sentencing (grounds 1 and 4 in both rule 3.…1 / 2
-
Sampson Armstrong v. State, 429 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1983)…letely foreclosed and are not subject to collateral attack. Antone v. State, 410 So. 2d 157 (Fla.1982); Goode v. State, 403 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1981); Alvord v. State, 396 So. 2d 184 (Fla.1981); Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1980); Henry v. State, 377 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1979). With regard to his sentence of death, appellant presents numerous arguments questioning its validity. He argues that the sentencing judge considered some improper aggravating circumstances and that, with their exclusion, the sentence of…
-
Hitchcock v. State, 432 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1983)…otion’s issues cites statistics from a twenty-one-county study on imposition of the death penalty in Florida in support of the claim that the death penalty has been imposed in an arbitrary, capricious, and irrational manner. In Henry [*44] v. State, 377 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1979), we held that such a claim could properly be raised in a post-conviction proceeding. In Thomas v. State, 421 So. 2d 160 (Fla.1982), however, we held that the statistics from this same study for Polk County did not constitute a sufficient…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spinkellink v. Louie L. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Rowan v. United States, 440 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1979)
- Idaho Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc. v. United States Food & Drug Admin., 440 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1979)
- Sullivan v. State, 372 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1979)