ALFIO FERRO, 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.
Alfio Ferro challenged his conviction eight years after sentencing, claiming his right to collaterally attack the conviction was violated by the absence of trial transcripts. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motions, holding that indigent prisoners are not entitled to unlimited free transcripts for post-conviction relief and that Ferro's piecemeal filings were properly denied.
An indigent prisoner is not entitled to unlimited free transcripts merely to prepare a Rule 3.850 motion; the law requires only that indigents not be assessed costs if an appeal is actually taken. All of Ferro's motions were properly denied because they were filed piecemeal rather than comprehensively in a single petition, and because he had no valid excuse for not raising all claims in his prior 3.850 motion.
[1] A prisoner is not entitled to obtain unlimited free transcripts preparatory to filing a motion for postconviction relief.
[2] A prisoner who makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief in a motion for postconviction relief shifts the burden to the state and the trial court to comb the r…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“a prisoner is not entitled to obtain unlimited free transcripts preparatory to filing a 3.850 motion. The law requires only that an indigent not be assessed costs of preparing an appellate record if an appeal is taken.”
Establishes the standard for transcript entitlement in post-conviction proceedings—transcripts are limited to actual appeals, not exploratory collateral attacks.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFerro was convicted and sentenced following a guilty plea. Eight years later, he filed multiple motions seeking post-conviction relief: first claiming…
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 Indigent Prisoner Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Some eight years after the imposition of sentence, Alfio Ferro argues that his “fundamental right” to collaterally attack his conviction has been thwarted by the absence or loss of any trial transcripts. This is simply not so. In Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), this court reaffirmed that a prisoner is not entitled to obtain unlimited free transcripts preparatory to filing a 3.850 motion. The law requires only that an indigent not be assessed costs of preparing an appellate record if an appeal is taken.1 Otherwise the rules effectuate pro se filings of 3.850 motions by limiting the movants to statements of fact rather than conclusions of law. Should a prisoner set forth a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the burden of combing the record thereafter shifts to the state and the trial court.
Our judicial labor does not end with the determination that Ferro’s sentence need not be vacated because transcripts cannot be had. Upon the heels of the motion dealing with transcript problems, Ferro filed a “supplement” wherein he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
We find his claims are conclusory and insufficient, and hold that the trial court properly denied relief on these grounds. Then came an “addendum” to the first series of motions wherein Ferro maintained that his plea was involuntary. This last filing appears to have been regarded as a separate motion by the trial court and, because it was not filed until after January 1,1987, the motion was denied as untimely. We cannot say that the decision to handle the “addendum” separately was incorrect. We have no intention of encouraging the piecemeal litigation that inevitably would result from endless last-minute supplemen-tations of 3.850 motions. Instead, the courts have a right to expect that pleadings will not be filed, whether by lawyers or lay persons, until sufficiently and completely drafted.
The trial court’s order is also sustainable because by Ferro’s own admission a 3.850 motion was filed prior to any in this series. Because Ferro has set forth no reasons why all his grievances could not have been aired in a single petition, all three of the motions presently before us, whether treated individually or collectively, were properly denied. Witt v. State, 465 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1985). Tanner v. State, 502 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur. . There is a reason why no record was prepared in this case. The judgment and sentence were the result of a plea. Although a notice of appeal was filed, it was untimely and the appeal was dismissed. Ferro v. State, 373 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We subsequently held that Ferro was not entitled to belated appellate review. Ferro v. Wainwright, 378 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCONN v. State, 708 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…v. State, 636 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In Smith, we dismissed a defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion to amend, holding we did not have jurisdiction to review such an order. In dicta, we noted, relying on Ferro v. State, 510 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), that a trial court has the authority to deny a motion to amend. However, in Grissom v. State, 679 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), we held a trial court should consider the merits of an addendum to a rule 3.850 postconvietion motio…
-
Lemus v. State, 585 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…refused to consider it. Such a finding is consistent with this court’s policy of disapproving potentially endless supplements and addenda to post-conviction motions, particularly when filed after some procedural deadline. See, e.g., Ferro v. State, 510 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, the court in Gardner did not explicitly hold that the original motion was similarly barred from consideration. Rather, the court found no need to address the issue since the motion was, as stated, wholly insufficient. W…
-
Cleophus Jackson v. State, 570 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…id not toll the time for appealing the original December 6 order. Finally, if the motion filed January 18 were treated as a separate proceeding, the trial court would have been authorized to deny it as a successive motion. See, e.g., Ferro v. State, 510 So. 2d 339 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). Appeal dismissed. DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. . The notice of appeal, which was filed July 23, 1990, does not comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(d) in that it fails to specify the r…
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
- Witt v. State, 465 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1985)
- Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Tanner v. State, 502 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)