MICHAEL R. ADAMS, SR., 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.
The court held that a second motion for postconviction relief containing the same allegations as a previously denied motion is impermissible.
Adams filed a motion for postconviction relief which was denied as legally insufficient. He later filed a letter alleging the same facts, which the tr…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
On 18 February 1983, Adams filed a motion for postconviction relief, Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary. The trial court denied the motion on 14 April 1983 on the ground that it was legally insufficient on its face. The order denying the motion contained a statement advising Adams that he had thirty days to appeal the order. No appeal was taken.
Adams wrote a letter to the trial court on 5 October 1983 alleging essentially the same facts as had been previously alleged in his Rule 3.850 motion. The trial court treated the letter as a “Motion to Vacate and Set Aside” and denied the motion. This appeal by Adams followed.
We agree with the trial court that the allegations contained in Adams’ letter were essentially the same as those contained in his Rule 3.850 motion filed on 18 February 1983. In effect, therefore, he has filed a second Rule 3.850 motion. Such a filing is impermissible under the rule. For this reason, the trial court was correct in denying Adams’ “motion.”
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.