HUNTLEY H. THOMPSON, 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.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the claims were raised in a successive and time-barred manner, and the Brady claim was facially insufficient.
Huntley H. Thompson petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, raising claims that should have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely Rule 3.850 mot…
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 Suppression Of Favorable Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Huntley H. Thompson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thompson’s claims should have and could have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely filed Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1241-42 (Fla.2004); Thomas v. State, 949 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Furthermore, the trial court did not err in denying the petition as a Rule 3.850 motion because Thompson has brought this issue before the trial court and this Court on multiple occasions. As such, it is successive and time-barred. Gamble v. State, 877 So. 2d 706, 720 (Fla.2004).
Finally, Thompson’s claim that the prosecution committed a violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by suppressing favorable DNA evidence is facially insufficient. The record reflects that Thompson knew of the evidence allegedly withheld. A Brady claim cannot stand if a defendant knew of the evidence allegedly withheld or had possession of it. Doorbal v. State, 983 So. 2d 464, 480 (Fla.2008). Thus, habeas relief regarding this issue was properly denied.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comesanas v. State, 246 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Doorbal v. State, 983 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2008)
- Harris v. Gilzean, 336 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
- Gamble v. State, 877 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2004)
- Thomas v. State, 949 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)