Carter v. State
| Decision Date | 29 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. N--537,N--537 |
| Citation | 242 So.2d 737 |
| Parties | Ronnie CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cecil C. Jackson, Pensacola, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant seeks review by direct appeal of an order denying his motion for rehearing and reconsideration. No appeal has been taken from the final order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.850, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., to which the points in his brief are directed.
It has long been the established law of this state that an order denying a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is nonappealable and not subject to appellate review. In Lett v. State 1 the Second District Court of Appeal said:
Since appellee has not raised the insufficiency of the notice of appeal nor claimed prejudice as a result thereof, we will ignore the error and proceed to a consideration of the merits of the appeal. 2
Appellant was charged, tried by a jury, convicted and sentenced for the offense of robbery. He appealed his judgment of conviction and sentence which resulted in an affirmance by this court. 3 Within less than three months following the going down of our mandate, this proceeding for post-conviction relief was filed in the trial court and was terminated by the rendition of a final order denying the relief sought.
By his brief filed in the case sub judice appellant presents five points for consideration. Four of these points were raised, considered, and decided adversely to appellant in the original appeal of his judgment of conviction and sentence. Questions which have been considered and disposed of on a direct appeal of a judgment of conviction and sentence will not be considered as grounds for post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 1.850, Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4
The remaining point in appellant's brief presents a question which is being urged for the first time on appeal. In addition, it deals exclusively with the validity of his arrest, an impermissible ground for challenge in a motion for post-conviction relief. 5
The judgment appealed herein is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bright v. State
...State, Fla.App.1971, 250 So.2d 10. We will not consider those points which were raised and decided in the original appeal. Carter v. State, Fla.App.1970, 242 So.2d 737 and Mears v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 212. Appellant's allegation that his conviction was based on perjured testimony......
-
Jones v. Wainwright, 41242
...issues already considered and determined by another appellate court. Tafero v. State, 242 So.2d 470 (3d DCA Fla.1971); Carter v. State, 242 So.2d 737 (1st DCA Fla.1970); Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967); Roberts v. State, 242 So.2d 191 (3d DCA Fla.1970). As between the s......
-
Williams v. State, 1D06-3532.
...Because a motion for rehearing is not subject to appellate review, this Court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Carter v. State, 242 So.2d 737, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(1). To the extent the appellant argues that he is appealing the underlying order, this Court ......
-
Bryant v. State, 1D05-4523.
...that an order denying a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is nonappealable and not subject to appellate review." Carter v. State, 242 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); see Cole v. State, 905 So.2d 905(Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ("Because the motion for rehearing is not subject to appellate revie......