LANCE POWELL, 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 affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that appellant's newly raised entrapment jury instruction claim was untimely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) and did not qualify as a fundamental change in law.
A postconviction relief claim based on an allegedly erroneous jury instruction on entrapment, raised for the first time in an amended motion filed after the trial court's original denial and outside the two-year time limitation, is untimely and need not be considered absent a fundamental change in law.
[1] A postconviction claim based on jury instruction error must be raised within the two-year time limitation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) or, if raised the…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted in 1993, appealed unsuccessfully, and filed a postconviction motion in 1995 that was summarily denied. After this court revers…
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 Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
We affirm the order denying postconviction relief to appellant and we write only to explain that the last issue on appeal was not timely raised. Appellant was convicted in 1993, and appealed his conviction which was affirmed without opinion by this court. See Powell v. State, 638 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Thereafter, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the trial court summarily denied in 1995. This court found that the record attachments conclusively refuted all but one of the points, and we reversed for an evidentiary hearing. See Powell v. State, 688 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). After remand, appellant filed an amended motion for postconviction relief, alleging for the first time that the trial court erred by using the standard jury instruction on entrapment, which this court held to be reversible error in Vazquez v. State, 700 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), rev. dismissed, 718 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1998). This claim was not filed within the two-year time limitation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) and was filed after the trial court originally denied the claim. Cf. Shaw v. State, 654 So. 2d 608, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). As appellant’s motion for postconvietion relief did not allege a fundamental change in the law under the requirements of Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922, 931 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980), the trial court correctly refused to consider the claim.
Affirmed.
FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- Adams v. Peat, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Jarrett v. Jarrett, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Vazquez v. State, 700 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- State v. Vazquez, 718 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1998)
- Shaw v. State, 654 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Powell v. State, 638 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Carstens v. State, 638 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Powell v. State, 688 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)