DEMETRIC GROOMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion for postconviction relief. The appellant argued the trial judge committed fundamental error by not disclosing a prior acquaintance with a juror's father, but the court found the claim untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless.
No, the postconviction court did not err. The claim was untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless.
[1] A postconviction claim challenging jury selection based on alleged judicial nondisclosure of a prior acquaintance with a juror's family member is procedurally barred when…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Grooms contends that the trial judge committed “fundamental error” when he failed to disclose during jury selection that he was previously acquainted with the father of one of the jurors.”
This quote captures the appellant's central argument for relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDemetric Grooms was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, sale of cocaine while armed, and escape in 2005 and sentenced to life in prison. Over…
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 Timeliness Of Postconviction Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Demetric Grooms appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In 2005, a jury found Grooms guilty of attempted second-degree murder, sale or delivery of cocaine while armed, and escape. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison with concurrent sentences of thirty years and fifteen years. After an unsuccessful direct appeal to this Court, mandate issued in 2006.
Now, over fifteen years later, Grooms contends that the trial judge committed “fundamental error” when he failed to disclose during jury selection that he was previously acquainted with the father of one of the jurors. Grooms submits that he is entitled to a new trial as a result. The postconviction court denied relief,
concluding that the claim was untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless. Finding no error by the postconviction court, we affirm.
We also conclude that this appeal is frivolous. This appeal marks Grooms’ fifth collateral attack on his judgment and sentence in Duval County Circuit Court Case Number 04-CF-3144. Grooms received no relief in any of these cases (1D17-1196, 1D18-5049, 1D19-4390, and 1D20-1430). The Court warns Grooms that any future filings that this Court determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution or facility of Florida Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2021) (providing that “[a] prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal . . . or to have brought a frivolous or malicious collateral criminal proceeding . . . is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections”). AFFIRMED.
RAY, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________