Crotty v. State
| Decision Date | 31 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1180,90-1180 |
| Citation | 568 So.2d 1328 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2686 Kendrick CROTTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kendrick Crotty, Indiantown, pro se.
No appearance for appellee.
Kendrick Crotty filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the Broward circuit court, which summarily denied relief without explanation or attachment of supporting portions of the record. Crotty, who challenged his conviction and sentences for armed burglary and grand theft, appeals the trial court's summary denial of relief.
In his motion, Crotty identified three grounds for post-conviction relief. First, he argued that he was given an illegal split sentence. Next, he claimed that his conviction and sentence for two separate crimes, based on the same act, violated his right to protection from double jeopardy. His third claim was that he was deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel who waived his right to appeal.
As for this latter ground, it is not appropriate for post-conviction relief. Instead, it may be the subject of a potential petition for writ of habeas corpus. On grounds one and two, however, appellant stated legally sufficient grounds for due consideration under rule 3.850.
As for these two grounds, the state in its response filed in the trial court argued that they too were inadequate because the motion lacked an oath as required under rule 3.850. The motion did contain an oath, but the notary public who notarized appellant's oath did not identify appellant as the one taking the oath. This hypertechnical argument is without merit. A plain review of the language identifies the one taking the oath as the defendant in the rule 3.850 proceedings. Appellant is the only defendant, thus leaving no doubt that it is his oath being notarized.
Furthermore, a memorandum of law follows, whereupon appellant verifies all preceding pages. This verification is then notarized again. To be sure, appellant's motion and memorandum complies with rule 3.850 and Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985).
The state also argues that the motion is misleading for failure to identify a previously filed motion for mitigation of sentence, which was denied September 20, 1989, and because it consists of mere conclusory allegations without factual support. These arguments are also without merit. The motion does adequately state grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kendall v. State
...whether the affiant was personally known to him or her, or whether the affiant produced identification. However, in Crotty v. State, 568 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), this court rejected a similar challenge to a rule 3.850 motion's notary section. We find no case law support for the trial......
-
Petrie v. State
...of a rule 3.850 motion, for this particular reason, is error. Kendall v. State, 619 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Crotty v. State, 568 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In reviewing the claims contained in the motion we have concluded that the only one which merits reversal is the claim that......
-
Francois v. State
...to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and remand with direction for consideration upon the merits. See Crotty v. State, 568 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., ...
-
Jackson v. State, 93-2920
...on by the trial court to deny the motion, does not render defective an otherwise legally sufficient rule 3.850 motion. See Crotty v. State, 568 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990. The state concedes that if we do not deny the motion on this technical basis, this cause should be remanded for an e......