JACK DEMPSEY PHILLIPS, 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.
Jack Dempsey Phillips appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged prosecutorial misconduct during his first-degree murder trial. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that claims available and known at trial must be raised on direct appeal and cannot be pursued through collateral attack.
The court held that matters known at the time of trial are not appropriate for collateral attack and must be raised on direct appeal. Collateral attack cannot be used as a substitute for direct appeal.
[1] Claims that should have been raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from collateral attack.
[2] Matters known at the time of trial are not appropriate for collateral attack.
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“Matters known at the time of trial are not appropriate for collateral attack, and collateral attack will not be used as a substitute for appeal.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that claims available at trial must be raised on direct appeal, not through post-conviction collateral relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillips was charged with first-degree murder and assault with intent to commit murder. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment on…
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 Collateral Attack cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jack Dempsey Phillips, the defendant, appeals an order, of the trial court denying a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, RCrP. Phillips was charged by information with one count of first degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary on the first count and found guilty on the second count and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary to begin upon expiration of the previous sentence. A direct appeal was taken to this court resulting in affirmance of the trial court’s rulings. Subsequently, the defendant pro se filed a Rule 3.850 CrPR motion to vacate sentence and judgment, alleging that during the trial, a spectator in the courtroom gave signals to a prosecution witness and that a prosecution witness conferred with a detective during a recess after being instructed by the court not to discuss the case. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, stating
“The motion and the record clearly show that the defendant is entitled to no release (sic). I have personal knowledge of the matters raised in his motion for appeal and deem them to be without merit.”
Although Phillips took a direct appeal to this court from the judgment and sentence (See Phillips v. State, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 623), he failed to raise either of the points presented in his pro se motion. Since the claims advanced should have been raised on direct appeal, at this juncture they must fail. Matters known at the time of trial are not appropriate for collateral attack, and collateral attack will not be used as a substitute for appeal. State v. Matera, Fla.1972, 266 So. 2d 661.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Skinner v. State, 366 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…cuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. We find no merit in the defendant’s contentions on this appeal save one. See: State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla.1972); Clements v. State, 320 So. 2d 44 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Phillips v. State, 313 So. 2d 428 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). In our view, the defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment for unarmed robbery exceeded the statutory maximum for such crime as provided in Section 812.-13(2)(c), 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1975), and, therefore, such sente…
-
Roth v. State, 385 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…was a matter which could have been raised on direct appeal and is thereby unassailable in a collateral attack on a judgment. Harvey v. State, 383 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Clements v. State, 320 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Phillips v. State, 313 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The fact that the basis of the defendant’s collateral attack is alleged to be one of constitutional dimension does not preclude a waiver by the failure to assert it on direct appeal. Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); San…
-
Emory Harvey v. State, 383 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…s court-appointed counsel. The first two grounds were matters which could have been raised on direct appeal and thereby are unassailable in a collateral attack on the judgment. Clements v. State, 320 So. 2d 44 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Phillips v. State, 313 So. 2d 428 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). The fact that one of the grounds is of constitutional dimension does not mean that a waiver may not occur. Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1970). The bare allegation of ineffectiv…
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
- State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972)
- Earine B. Jackson v. State, 299 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)