MARK R. HURLEY, 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.
Mark Hurley appealed the denial of his postconviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel, raising seven grounds. The court found one ground (failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument) was improperly summarily denied because ineffective assistance claims, though distinct from direct prosecutorial misconduct claims, are properly raised in postconviction proceedings.
A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument is properly raised by postconviction motion under Rule 3.850, even though the underlying prosecutorial misconduct claim must be raised on direct appeal. The trial court erred in summarily denying this ground.
[1] Claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments must be raised on direct appeal.
[2] A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments is properly raised in a postconviction motion.
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“The trial court was correct that the claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing must be raised on direct appeal, not as a postconviction claim.”
Establishes that the underlying prosecutorial misconduct claims are procedurally barred from postconviction review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHurley was convicted by jury in 2001 of capital sexual battery and sentenced to life without parole. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, as …
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Mark R. Hurley [“Hurley”] appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postcon-viction relief following an evidentiary hearing in which he asserted seven grounds for his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective.
In 2001, Hurley was convicted by a jury of capital sexual battery and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed his conviction. See Hurley v. State, 849 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). This Court also affirmed the denial of his 3.853 motion for postcon-viction DNA testing. See Hurley v. State, 871 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
On May 10, 2004, Hurley filed the current 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in the trial court. The trial court set grounds I, III, IV and V for evidentiary hearing and summarily denied the rest. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Hurley the requested relief. We find no error except in the summary denial of ground VI.
In ground VI, Hurley asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial or object to portions of the State’s closing argument. The trial court summarily denied this claim, ruling that claims of prosecutorial misconduct must be raised on direct appeal and are procedurally barred from consideration in a 3.850 motion for posteonviction relief.
The trial court was correct that the claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing must be raised on direct appeal, not as a posteonviction claim. See, e.g., Lamarca v. State, 931 So. 2d 838, 851 n. 8 (Fla.2006). However, Hurley’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to these remarks is properly raised by posteonviction motion. See Bell v. State, — So. 2d —, 32 Fla. L. Weekly S307, 2007 WL 1628143 (Fla. June 7, 2007). The trial court erred in refusing to examine it.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.