THEARON SAMPSON, 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.
Thearon Sampson appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his conviction for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. The court affirmed the denial of grounds three, five, and six, but reversed and remanded grounds one, two, and four because they were incorrectly deemed successive when the prior 3.850 motion involved a different case number and different claims.
The court held that grounds one, two, and four were not properly subject to dismissal as successive because the prior December 1999 Rule 3.850 motion was filed in a different case number (97-19044) and raised no claims regarding case number 97-4986. The trial court must address the ineffective assistance of counsel claims on remand. Grounds three, five, and six were properly denied; ground three because direct appeal issues are not cognizable in postconviction motions, and grounds five and six without comment.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief may be denied as successive if the prior determination was on the merits.
[2] A trial court's order will be affirmed if it is sustainable under any theory revealed by the record, even if entered for erroneous reasons.
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“the December 1999 rule 3.850 motion was filed in trial court case number 97-19044 and not in trial court case number 97-4986”
Establishes the factual basis for reversal—the prior motion was in a different case and therefore could not bar the current motion as successive.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSampson was convicted by jury trial of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer in case number 97-4986, and his judgment and sentence were affi…
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 Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Thearon Sampson challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Sampson raised six grounds in his motion. In grounds five and six, Sampson claimed that his sentence was illegal. We affirm, without comment, that portion of the trial court’s order denying these grounds. We also affirm the trial court’s denial of ground three of the motion since the claim of trial court error raised therein should have been brought on direct appeal and is not cognizable in a postconviction motion. However, we reverse the trial court’s order as to grounds one, two, and four of Sampson’s motion and remand to the trial court to consider these claims.
Sampson was convicted after jury trial of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer in trial court case number 97-4986. His judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Sampson v. State, 743 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (table decision). Sampson timely filed the rule 3.850 motion, the denial of which is presently under review. In grounds one, two, and four, Sampson raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied these claims, along with the claim raised in ground three, on the basis that they were successive since Sampson had previously filed a rule 3.850 motion in the same trial court case on December 28, 1999,1 which was denied by the order of the trial court rendered February 10, 2000. However, as correctly stated by Sampson in his motion for rehearing, the December 1999 rule 3.850 motion was filed in trial court case number 97-19044 and not in trial court case number 97-4986.
In the December 1999 rule 3.850 motion, Sampson alleged that his plea in case number 97-19044 was not voluntarily entered. In the present case, as noted above, Sampson was convicted after jury trial and did not enter a plea. In its February 10, 2000, order denying the December 1999 motion, the trial court stated: “Although Defendant’s Motion was filed in both case numbers 97-4986 and 97-19044, his claims are applicable only to case number 97-19044 and are without merit.”2 Thus, the trial court previously ruled that the December 1999 rule 3.850 motion raised no claims in regard to case number 97-4986.
Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order denying grounds one, two, and four of Sampson’s motion as successive. On remand, the trial court shall address the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel raised in those grounds.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., concur. . Rather than utilizing the mailbox rule, the trial court determined the date of filing based on the date stamp of the clerk of the circuit court.
. Although the style of the trial court’s February 10, 1999, order lists trial court cases 97-4986 and 97-19044, the December 1999 rule 3.850 motion that is part of our record lists only case number 97-19044 in the style of the motion but does contain a reference in the body of the motion to case number 97-4986, even though it raises no claims in regard to that case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henry v. State, 933 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ms of prosecutorial misconduct and trial court error should have been raised on direct appeal. See Brown v. State, 894 So. 2d 137, 145 (Fla. 2004) (holding that claims of prosecutorial misconduct should be raised on direct appeal); Sampson v. State, 845 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that claims of trial court error should be raised on direct appeal). Based on the limited record, it does not appear that Henry reserved the right to appeal any claims and, therefore, Henry’s guilty plea waived any c…
-
Arteaga v. State, 246 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Morris v. State, 50 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ted ten grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and one claim of prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutorial misconduct claim is not cognizable in a postconviction motion and was properly denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(c); Sampson v. State, 845 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). With the exception of the grounds raised in claims two, three and nine, Appellant’s claims were correctly denied because they were either conclusively refuted by the record or Appellant did not establish prejudice. According…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence