ALPHONSO MCBRIDE, 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.
McBride appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, arguing the court erred by denying it based on the two-year filing deadline. Although the appellate court agreed the trial court used the wrong reason for denial, it affirmed the denial because the motion was improper as an unsworn, successive request raising identical arguments previously rejected.
The trial court erred in denying the motion based solely on the two-year deadline, but the court correctly denied the motion because it was improper in other respects—specifically, it was an unsworn memorandum raising identical arguments that constituted a successive request for relief that had already been considered and rejected.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief accompanied by an unsworn memorandum containing factual allegations cannot be considered by the trial court.
[2] An appellate court will affirm a trial court's decision if the correct result is reached, even if for an incorrect reason.
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“We hold that the trial court erred when it concluded that petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief should be denied because it was filed more than two years after his judgment and sentence became final. However, we affirm the denial of the motion because it is improper in other respects.”
Establishes the core holding that the two-year deadline was not a proper basis for denial, but the motion was properly denied for other reasons.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcBride originally filed a motion for post-conviction relief on March 8, 1983, which the trial court denied on January 11, 1984. He failed to timely a…
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 Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Petitioner, Alphonso McBride, filed an appeal from the trial court’s order denying relief, which this court treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking the right to file a belated appeal. We remanded this case to the trial court for appointment of a commissioner to make evidentiary findings on the issues raised by petitioner. Based on the commissioner’s report, we grant the petition for belated appellate review of the trial court’s order dated January 8, 1987, which denied petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
We hold that the trial court erred when it concluded that petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief should be denied because it was filed more than two years after his judgment and sentence became final. However, we affirm the denial of the motion because it is improper in other respects. See Grant v. State, 474 So. 2d 259, 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (appellate court will not reverse when the trial court reaches the right result for the wrong reason).
Petitioner originally filed a motion for post-conviction relief and accompanying memorandum on March 8, 1983. On January 11, 1984, the trial court denied the motion and stated its reasons for denial of each ground raised by petitioner. Petitioner failed to timely appeal and this court by order denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus for belated appellate review.
The present motion for post-conviction relief refers to an attached, unsworn memorandum that contains the factual allegations which petitioner asserts in support of his motion for post-conviction relief. We held in Daniels v. State, 450 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) that an unsworn memorandum cannot be considered by the trial court. In Daniels, we affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion for post-conviction relief without prejudice to the petitioner to file a properly sworn motion. However, the present motion for post-conviction relief and memorandum contain the identical arguments considered by the trial court in 1983. Therefore, the motion is clearly an improper, successive request for relief. See Stewart v. State, 495 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1986) and Christopher v. State, 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peavy v. State, 599 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…m of law containing the factual allegations which formed the basis for the relief sought. The motion was therefore facially insufficient and correctly denied by the trial court. Daniels v. State, 450 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); McBride v. State, 524 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); see also Myers v. State, 539 So. 2d 525, 526, n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of appellant’s motion for' postconviction relief without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief upon a properly s…
-
Steele v. State, 705 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ling with the trial court, within thirty (30) days after the date of this opinion, his motion for post-conviction relief and accompanying memorandum of law with proper oaths. See Thomas v. State, 686 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); McBride v. State, 524 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Daniels v. State, 450 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Osceola v. State, 761 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e, 621 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). While supporting facts are stated in the supporting memorandum of law, the memorandum is not properly sworn and thus the facts recited therein could not be considered by [*1171] the court. See McBride v. State, 524 So. 2d 1113, 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The affir-mance on point III is without prejudice to appellant filing, within 30 days of this opinion, a properly sworn motion for postcon-viction relief containing specific facts. See Steele v. State, 705 So. 2d 1058, 105…
Authorities Cited
- Tortoise Island Cmtys., Inc. v. The Moorings Ass'n, Inc., 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1986)
- Klein v. Advance Mortg. Corp., 450 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Stewart v. State, 495 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1986)
- Grant v. State, 474 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)