Goode v. State, 59453
| Decision Date | 09 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 59453,59453 |
| Citation | 403 So.2d 931 |
| Parties | Arthur Frederick GOODE, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
W. C. McLain of Smith, Carta & Ringsmuth, Fort Myers, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Michael A. Palecki, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
We have for review an order denying a motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant, Arthur Frederick Goode, III, was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. See Goode v. State, 365 So.2d 381 (Fla.1978). Appellant, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence alleging several constitutional infirmities in the guilt and sentencing phases of the trial. The trial court denied said motion and a subsequent motion for rehearing filed by appellant. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.
Appellant raises seven issues in support of his assertion that the trial court erred in denying his motions. Five of those raised are issues which either could have been or were raised on direct appeal. A motion to vacate judgment and sentence cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, and where matters raised therein could have been or were raised on direct appeal, denial of the motion is proper. See Meeks v. State, 382 So.2d 673 (Fla.1980).
Specifically, appellant's arguments that the trial court improperly considered nonstatutory aggravating circumstances, that the court found appellant's mental condition to be a mitigating circumstance but failed to state such in the findings of fact, and that the court applied an incorrect burden of proof in determining aggravating and mitigating circumstances are matters which should have been raised on appeal. Nor, his assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, do we agree that appellant could not have raised the preceding issues on appeal. The record demonstrates that he should have, at the time, been aware of those matters.
Petitioner's arguments regarding the validity of the findings that the murder was heinous, atrocious, and cruel, and that he was competent to stand trial are matters that he actually did raise on appeal to this Court. The trial court's refusal to vacate judgment and sentence was proper as it related to the preceding matters which either could have been or were raised on direct appeal to this Court.
There remain two matters for our consideration. First, appellant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of court-appointed counsel by virtue of the co-counsel relationship which was imposed on him and the failure of his co-counsel to raise an insanity defense. Appellant acknowledges that one who represents himself cannot later complain of his own ineffective self representation, but emphasizes that he is complaining of ineffective assistance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goode v. Wainwright
...violations in the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of this motion. Goode v. State, 403 So.2d 931 (Fla.1981). During this time, Goode joined with others in filing in the Florida Supreme Court a habeas action, alleging that the Florida Supre......
-
Downs v. State
...evidence concerning his background, he may not complain on this appeal of counsel's failure to do the same. See Goode v. State, 403 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla.1981) (holding that where defendant knowingly waived right to counsel and was fully informed of perils of self-representation, and trial co......
-
Armstrong v. State, 61871
...or another, completely foreclosed and are not subject to collateral attack. Antone v. State, 410 So.2d 157 (Fla.1982); Goode v. State, 403 So.2d 931 (Fla.1981); Alvord v. State, 396 So.2d 184 (Fla.1981); Adams v. State, 380 So.2d 423 (Fla.1980); Henry v. State, 377 So.2d 692 With regard to ......
-
Wainwright v. Goode, Iii, 83-131
...the denial was affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court on the ground that the matter should have been raised on direct appeal. Goode v. State, 403 So.2d 931 (1981). The Governor issued a warrant ordering that Goode be executed on March 2, Goode then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpu......