POUNDS
v.
STATE
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.
Wade Pounds appealed the trial court's summary denial of his postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which was rejected as successive. The trial court erroneously found that Pounds raised newly discovered evidence in a prior motion when he had not, and improperly prohibited him from filing further pro se pleadings without following required procedures.
The court reversed the trial court's order summarily denying the postconviction motion as successive because Pounds did not actually raise newly discovered evidence in his prior motion. The court also reversed the prohibition on pro se filings because the trial court failed to follow the required procedures, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing such a restriction.
[1] A postconviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence cannot be denied as legally successive merely because a prior motion was denied, unless the same newly discover…
[2] Before prohibiting a criminal defendant from filing further pro se pleadings in the trial court, the court must first issue appropriate notice and provide the defendant w…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePounds filed a postconviction motion on August 23, 2018, which the trial court denied on November 1, 2018. On December 3, 2018, Pounds filed another p…
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 Statutory Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wade Pounds appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his December 3, 2018 pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion as successive upon finding that Pounds raised the same ground for relief – newly discovered evidence – in an August 23, 2018 postconviction motion that the lower court denied in a November 1, 2018 order.1 As the State properly and commendably concedes, Pounds did not raise the issue of newly discovered evidence as a ground for relief in his August 23, 2018 postconviction motion. We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.2 If, on remand, the trial court again determines to summarily deny Pounds’s claim, the trial court shall attach record excerpts showing that Pounds is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
We note that, in the order on review, the trial court also both (i) ordered Pounds to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se pleadings in lower tribunal case number F06-24000B, and (ii) prohibited Pounds from filing any further pro se pleadings. Because the trial court failed to follow the procedure required to impose such a prohibition, see State v. Spencer, 1 This Court affirmed the trial court’s November 1, 2018 denial of Pounds’s August 23, 2018 motion in appellate case number 3D18-2510. See Pounds v. State, No. 3D18-2510 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 17, 2019).
751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), we reverse this portion of the trial court’s order as well.
If, on remand, the trial court still wishes to preclude Pounds from filing further pro se pleadings in the lower court case, the court shall first issue the appropriate notice and provide Pounds with an opportunity to be heard. Chambers v. State, 225 So. 3d 311, 311-12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Keon Chambers v. State, 225 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Ramos v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 358 (U.S. 2013)