BLAINE ELKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Elkins appeals the denial of his successive motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his counsel's failure to advise him of sentencing guideline options. The court affirmed the denial on grounds that the motion was untimely, successive, and meritless.
The court affirmed the denial of the successive motion on three independent grounds: (1) the motion was untimely as filed after January 1, 1987; (2) it was an impermissible successive motion raising claims previously known and litigated; and (3) on the merits, counsel had no obligation to advise of guideline sentencing options that were not available to a defendant facing First Degree Murder charges.
[1] A successive motion for relief from judgment is untimely if filed after January 1, 1987, absent allegations that the facts or legal basis for the claim were unknown to th…
[2] A successive motion for relief from judgment may be denied when it raises claims that were known to the movant at the time of a prior motion and were previously litigated…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The Court finds that this successive motion should be denied because it is untimely, having been filed after January 1, 1987.”
Establishes the temporal bar for successive 3.850 motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElkins was indicted for First Degree Murder, Burglary, and Robbery in July 1983. In July 1984, he entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to Second …
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 Untimely Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We adopt the following opinion denying the appellant’s successive motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850:
1. On July 27, 1983, the defendant was charged by Indictment with First Degree Murder, Burglary of a Dwelling, and Robbery. On July 16, 1984, the defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State of Florida, where he pled guilty to the reduced charge of Second Degree Murder, and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The Burglary and Robbery charges were nolle prossed.
2. On July 25, 1985, the defendant filed his first motion to vacate, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of the initial plea and sentencing; namely, that his counsel failed to discuss the sentencing ramifications with him, and the possible applicability of the sentencing guidelines. The motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing on August 19, 1985. On September 19, 1986, an evidentiary hearing was conducted, and on November 10, 1986, the same motion was again denied. The defendant appealed, and on May 19, 1987, the Third District affirmed. 3. On August 12, 1989, the defendant filed the present successive motion to vacate. The only ground is that the defendant’s counsel did not advise him of the opportunity to select to be sentenced within the sentencing guidelines. The same issue was raised and denied in the defendant’s prior 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.
4. The Court finds that this successive motion should be denied because it is untimely, having been filed after January 1, 1987. See Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. No facts have been alleged by the defendant upon which it could be inferred that the facts or the legal basis upon which the claim was predicated were unknown to the defendant. See Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196 (Fla.1987); Paez v. State, 512 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Golphin v. State, 522 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Grooms v. State, 522 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
5. The Court also finds that the present motion should be denied, because it is a successive motion which raises claims that were obviously known to the defendant at the time his prior motion was filed, and were raised by the defendant in his prior motion and denied. See Darden v. State, 496 So. 2d 136 (Fla.1986); Christopher v. State, 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1986); Witt v. State, 465 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1985).
6. Finally, the Court finds that this successive motion should be denied on its merits. The defendant was charged with First Degree Murder and facing the death penalty. The sentencing guidelines did not apply to his sentence, and was not an option from which he could select. According to the September 19, 1986, evidentiary hearing (attached to this Order as Exhibit A), the defendant was never offered a guideline plea. The defendant's only plea offer from the State was life in prison with the possibility of parole. Therefore, the defendant’s counsel was under no obligation to advise the defendant of a plea offer under the sentencing guidelines that did not exist.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilcox v. State, 586 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…7 (Fla.1984). Further, the instant motion in the trial court was a successive motion, raising claims obviously known to the appellant at the time of his prior motions. Therefore, the action of the trial court should be affirmed. See Elkins v. State, 555 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Mullings v. State, 553 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Affirmed.…
-
Slattery v. State, 654 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…invoked prior to sentencing,” and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850); State v. Salmon, 636 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1994) (allegations that were or could have been made in previous postconviction motions do not constitute basis for granting later motion); Elkins v. State, 555 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (trial court properly denied successive motion for posteonvietion relief where claims raised were known to defendant when prior motion filed).…
-
Reinhart v. State, 596 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. White v. Dugger, 565 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1990); Elkins v. State, 555 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tortoise Island Cmtys., Inc. v. The Moorings Ass'n, Inc., 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1986)
- Witt v. State, 465 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1985)
- Bennie Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1987)
- Gonzalo Paez v. State, 512 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Darden v. State, 496 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1986)
- Lenzo Grooms, Jr. v. State, 522 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Golphin v. State, 522 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)