Lambrix v. State, 86119
Decision Date | 12 September 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 86119,86119 |
Citation | 698 So.2d 247 |
Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly S365 Cary Michael LAMBRIX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Matthew Lawry, Tallahassee, and Robert Josefsberg of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Miami, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Carol M. Dittmar, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Cary Michael Lambrix, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
The facts and procedural history of this case are fully set forth in Lambrix's prior appeals and collateral challenges. Lambrix v. State, 494 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1986) ( ); Lambrix v. Dugger, 529 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1988) ( ); Lambrix v. State, 534 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1988) ( ); Lambrix v. State, 559 So.2d 1137 (Fla.1990) ( ); Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847 (Fla.1994) ( ). Lambrix also filed a habeas petition in federal court in 1988, which raised a number of the same issues asserted in the case at bar. The federal district court's denial of the petition was recently affirmed in a comprehensive opinion by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See Lambrix v. Singletary, 72 F.3d 1500 (11th Cir.1996).
The trial court summarily denied Lambrix's instant motion for postconviction relief, finding that his claims were without merit and procedurally barred as untimely and successive or abusive. Lambrix's appeal raises a number of issues, only one of which merits discussion. 2 Lambrix asserts that he was deprived of the right to represent himself in his initial motion for postconviction relief in violation of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and Durocher v. Singletary, 623 So.2d 482 (Fla.1993). He asserts that the proper remedy for this alleged violation is to permit him the opportunity to raise a new, original motion for postconviction relief.
We do not need to reach Lambrix's claim that he should have been allowed to represent himself in the prosecution of his motion for postconviction relief. In his appeal from the denial of that motion, Lambrix did not raise the issue of whether he should have been permitted to represent himself. Lambrix has waited six years to raise this issue, well beyond the two-year time limit imposed by rule 3.850. In the meantime, Lambrix has had a number of opportunities to represent himself, including two pro se proceedings considered on their merits by this Court. See Lambrix, 529 So.2d at 1110; Lambrix, 559 So.2d at 1137. Furthermore, Lambrix has failed to establish that there are issues he would have raised while representing himself in his first 3.850 proceeding that have not already been raised in subsequent proceedings.
Lambrix also argues that his collateral counsel's failure to appeal the trial court's denial of his request to represent himself constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. However, claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief. Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 106 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). In any event, in a previous pro se petition, Lambrix raised a claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel which was denied. Lambrix, 559 So.2d at 1138. Successive claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on different grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knight v. State
...that the `claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief, citing Lambrix v. State, 698 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla.1996). Vining v. State, at 215-216 Defendant in this case as reflected by the record filed the initial shell motion within one year......
-
Lambrix v. Sec'y
...motion because “his claims were without merit” and also were “untimely and successive or abusive” under state law. See Lambrix v. State, 698 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla.1996); 14see also Aldridge v. State, 503 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Fla.1987) (holding that the appellant could not raise additional bases ......
-
Lambrix v. State, SC16–8
...2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), challenged various aggravators, and raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim); Lambrix v. State , 698 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 1996), cert. denied , 522 U.S. 1122, 118 S.Ct. 1064, 140 L.Ed.2d 125 (1998) (affirming the summary denial of a successive postcon......
-
Zack v. State
...has stated that "claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief." Lambrix v. State, 698 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla.1996); see also King v. State, 808 So.2d 1237, 1245 (Fla.2002) (upholding the trial court's denial of relief on the ineffective ass......