THOMAS WAYNE KENDRICK, 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.
Kendrick appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea. The court affirmed the denial, holding that because it had already fully reviewed and rejected the identical voluntariness argument in Kendrick's direct appeal, it would not reconsider the issue in the post-conviction proceeding.
The court denied Kendrick's motion to supplement the record and affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Points considered and held not to be error on a plenary direct appeal from a judgment and sentence will not be reconsidered on appeal from denial of post-conviction relief, and Rule 3.850 is not a vehicle for belated appellate review of a judgment and sentence.
[1] Points considered and held not to be error on a plenary appeal from a judgment and sentence will not again be considered on an appeal from denial of post conviction relie…
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is not a procedural vehicle for belated appellate review of a judgment and sentence.
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“It is well settled that points considered and held not to be error on a plenary appeal from a judgment and sentence will not again be considered on an appeal from denial of post conviction relief.”
Establishes the core holding that issues rejected on direct appeal cannot be revisited through post-conviction proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKendrick entered a guilty plea and was sentenced. He appealed the conviction and sentence directly, arguing the plea was involuntary and coerced. In t…
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has filed herein a Notice of Appeal from a lower court order denying post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant now moves to supplement the record on appeal in this cause by including therein a transcript of testimony taken at the entry of Appellant’s guilty plea, together with a pre-sentence investigation report considered by the trial judge at sentencing.
Our examination of this appeal reveals that Appellant seeks to have this Court review a lower court order denying post conviction relief upon a finding that a plea of guilty entered by Appellant was freely and voluntarily entered with a full understanding of the constitutional rights waived and the maximum penalty that could be invoked. The order appealed from reveals that Appellant has previously taken a full appeal from this judgment and sentence in Kendrick v. State, 336 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In that case, we considered Appellant’s sole contention that the judgment and sentence imposed therein followed a guilty plea which was involuntary and coerced. Our consideration of that argument included a full review of testimony taken at the entry of the guilty plea, and our decision after that review was to affirm the judgment and sentence of the lower court. We now decline to repeat that judicial labor by considering anew the voluntariness of Appellant’s guilty plea. It is well settled that points considered and held not to be error on a plenary appeal from a judgment and sentence will not again be considered on an appeal from denial of post conviction relief. Mears v. State, 232 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is not a procedural vehicle through which a belated appellate review of a judgment and sentence can be obtained. Mays v. State, 285 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Appellant’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal is denied. Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time is denied but Appellee is granted fifteen (15) days from the date hereof within which to file its brief or any other pleadings, as it deems appropriate, authorized by the Florida Appellate Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Braverman v. State, 393 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…proceedings may not again be presented in a motion under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. Whitney v. State, 184 So. 2d 207, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 192 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1966); see, Jones v. Wainwright, 252 So. 2d 570 (Fla.1971); Kendrick v. State, 353 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (precluding 3.850 claim that plea was involuntary when issue had been determined in previous appeal). This is the case because our earlier decision did not consider the issue before the trial court in the 3.850 proceeding, that i…
Authorities Cited
- Leevy Carlton Mears, Jr. v. State, 232 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Joyce v. Spitzer Motors OF Miami, Inc., 285 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)