Bundy v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 68976,68976 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 294 Theodore Robert BUNDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James E. Coleman, Jr. and Polly J. Nelson of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Gregory Costas, Andrea Smith Hillyer and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Theodore Robert Bundy appeals the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence. Bundy is a state prisoner under sentence of death and a warrant ordering that the sentence be carried out. * This Court's previous affirmance of appellant's convictions and sentences determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove guilt, that all of appellant's contentions made there regarding the convictions and sentences were without merit, and that the sentences of death were proper under the law. Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330, 336 349, 350 (Fla.1984). None of these determinations are now subject to being re-litigated. The burden is on the appellant to establish that he is entitled to have the judgments or sentences set aside. We find that he has not carried that burden. We therefore affirm the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief.
Appellant's motion presents four contentions: (1) that the trial court erred by failure to conduct a full and fair inquiry into appellant's competency to stand trial; (2) that appellant was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel; (3) that the state failed to properly preserve evidence that could possibly have been exculpatory; (4) that imposition of the death penalty in this case violates the eighth amendment on the ground that application of capital punishment in Florida is arbitrary.
Appellant's first contention is without merit because in fact there was a proper competency hearing. We reject the second contention because appellant has failed to show any deficiency of performance on the part of his trial counsel. The third contention is one that was known to the defendant at trial and therefore could have been raised at trial and on appeal but cannot be considered now. The fourth contention is one that has been rejected many times by this Court.
The trial court's denial of the motion to vacate is affirmed. The motion for stay of execution is denied.
It is so ordered.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
For the reasons expressed in my concurring opinion in Bundy v. State, 490 So.2d 1257 (Fla.1986),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGowan v. State, 91-208
...not raised on direct appeal are barred from being raised on a motion for post-conviction relief unless fundamental error); Bundy v. State, 490 So.2d 1258 (Fla.1986) (matter known to defendant at trial, which therefore could have been raised at trial and on appeal, cannot be raised in motion......
-
Brown v. State, 87-116
...3.850 is affirmed, because this second petition either alleges matters which were or could have been raised on appeal, Bundy v. State, 490 So.2d 1258 (Fla.1986), Rogers v. State, 467 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) or which were previously raised in a 3.850 motion and denied. See Christopher ......