AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, 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 while most issues raised in a post-conviction relief motion are procedurally barred if they could have been raised on direct appeal, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea are proper grounds for collateral relief.
Defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which the trial court summarily denied. The trial court found that the issues raised were either …
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 Collateral Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Judge.
The defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which was summarily denied without a hearing based on the trial court’s determination that the files and records conclusively showed that the defendant was not entitled to relief, and the issues raised could have or should have been raised by direct appeal. No portion of the file was attached to the trial court’s order. We agree that most of the issues raised by the defendant are matters which are barred from consideration in a collateral proceeding because they could have or should have been raised on appeal. See e.g., Cave v. State, 529 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1988); McCrae v. State, 510 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1987). However, the contentions that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not freely and voluntarily made are proper grounds for collateral relief. See e.g., Francis v. State, 529 So. 2d 670 (Fla.1988); Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1984).
We find that defendant’s allegations as to these grounds, although perhaps not artfully drawn, are legally sufficient to preclude summary disposition. See Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (Fla.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178, 106 S.Ct. 2908, 90 L.Ed.2d 993 (1986) (Rule 3.850 movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the motion and record conclusively show that, accepting the allegations as true, movant is not entitled to relief). Accordingly, the order denying relief is reversed as it relates to the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the involuntary nature of the plea, and this case is remanded for further proceedings including, if necessary, evidentiary hearings on those grounds. In all other respects the order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Welch v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 590 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief, or whether a party is entitled to arbitration. An order granting a motion to dismiss without prejudice is not an appeal-able final or non-final order. EIR, Inc. v. Electronic Molding Corp., 540 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also Scott v. Waste Management Inc. of Florida, 537 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). A final summary judgment entered on one count of a multi-count complaint is not appealable where interrelated counts remain. Boca Grande Pro…
-
Davis v. State, 571 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…f pursuant to Rule 3.850. See Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1984); Isley v. State, 565 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ward v. State, 545 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Joseph v. State, 540 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). When a trial court summarily denies a motion for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record to refute the allegations, review is limited to determining whether, accepting…
-
Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…irections. COWART and PETERSON, JJ., . concur. . Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). . See Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1984); Isley v. State, 565 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Joseph v. State, 540 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ward v. State, 545 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). . See Kennedy v. State, 547 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1989); Gorham v. State, 521 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.1988); Squires v. State, 513 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1987); Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (F…
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
- Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1986)
- Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1984)
- McCRAE v. State, 510 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1987)
- Mapes v. Ohio, 476 U.S. 1178 (U.S. 1986)
- Golub v. Ernst & Ernst (Whinney), 476 U.S. 1178 (U.S. 1986)
- Alphonso Cave v. State, 529 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1988)
- Francis v. State, 529 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1988)