SHERMAN L'HOMMEDIEU, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
In his motion filed under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, appellant alleges that he did not have counsel when he was convicted in 1952 and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Obviously, appellant is not now serving this three-year sentence. The motion does not state whether he is presently incarcerated and, if so, how or whether his original sentence affected his current sentence. See State v. Reynolds, 238 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1970). If he merely seeks to expunge his conviction from the record, he should say so pursuant to the authority of Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). Therefore, the denial of his motion is affirmed without prejudice.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
In his pro se petition for rehearing appellant has stated additional facts. Since this court cannot entertain new facts not presented to the court below, the petition is denied. The appellant is at liberty to file in the trial court another motion under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850 setting forth under oath such additional facts as may be pertinent to his request for relief.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Cornelian J. Smith, 547 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e of medical probability.” The instruction here tracked that language; mention of subjective complaint was not required. See Eley v. Moris, 478 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Thompson v. Funny, 440 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Garcia v. Antunez, 362 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Reversal will not be granted where the subject of the proposed instruction is covered in other charges given by the court, or where failure to give the instruction is not shown to be prejudicial. Giordano v. Ramirez, 503 So. 2d…
-
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1980)…alifying pardon or the Secretary’s consent. Also, petitioner, before obtaining his firearm, could have challenged his prior conviction in an appropriate proceeding in the Florida state courts. See Fla. Const., Art. 5, § 5 (3) ; L’Hommedieu v. State, 362 So. 2d 72 (Fla. App. 1978); Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla. App. 1975). See also United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502 (1954).7 It seems fully apparent to us that the existence of these remedies, two of which are expressly contained in the Omnibus Act it…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Madison Lee Reynolds, 238 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1970)
- Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)