Lightbourne v. State

Decision Date03 June 1985
Docket NumberNo. 67100,67100
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 303 Ian Deco LIGHTBOURNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

James D. Crawford of Schnader, Harrison, Segal and Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

ADKINS, Justice.

Ian Lightbourne was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380 (Fla.1983). The Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for Writ of Certiorari on February 21, 1984. Lightbourne v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984).

On May 31, 1985, an emergency application for stay of execution to permit filing of a motion for post-conviction relief was filed in the circuit court so as to allow Lightbourne time to file a "final" motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Such motion was treated by the trial court as both an application for a stay of execution and a motion for post-conviction relief. The circuit court denied the appellant's request for a stay of execution and further held that Lightbourne's emergency pleading was inadequate to justify post-conviction relief. Lightbourne now appeals that decision. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Appellant's motion to vacate judgment raised the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion without affording appellant an evidentiary hearing and without making findings and attaching portions of the record which conclusively rebutted the factual allegations of the motion; (2) whether appellant was denied the right to an impartial jury due to the prosecutor's use of preemptory challenges in eliminating two black jurors; (3) whether the trial court improperly considered various aspects of the presentence investigation report in determining appellant's sentence; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction and sentence; and (5) whether appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial.

Issues 2, 3 and 4 either were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are therefore foreclosed in this proceeding for collateral review. Raulerson v. State, 462 So.2d 1085 (Fla.1985); Jones v. State, 446 So.2d 1059 (Fla.1984).

Appellant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing is without merit. The law is clear that when the motion and record conclusively demonstrate that the movant is not entitled to relief, the motion may be denied without an evidentiary hearing. Riley v. State, 433 So.2d 976, 979 (Fla.1983). In this instance the lower court properly determined that there was "no basis in fact or law" for granting relief, thus dispensing with the requirement for an evidentiary hearing. Further, the failure of the trial judge to attach a copy of the record to his order rejecting such a motion does not constitute reversible error. See Goode v. State, 403 So.2d 931 (Fla.1981).

Lightbourne alleged that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to request appointment of expert witnesses, failed to discover and present mitigating evidence at sentencing and failed to impeach or rebut the trial testimony of certain jailhouse informants. Applying the test enunciated by the United States Supreme...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Lightbourne v. Dugger
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • September 18, 1987
    ...3.850. The circuit court denied both the stay and the rule 3.850 motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed. Lightbourne v. State, 471 So.2d 27 (Fla.1985). A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on June 3, 1985, in federal district court. The district court reviewed as much of the......
  • Troy v. Sec'y of Dep't of Corr., Case No. 8:11-cv-796-T30-AEP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • January 2, 2013
    ...judge was aware of many of the mitigating factors that the defendant claims on appeal should havebeen presented. See Lightbourne v. State, 471 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla. 1985) (holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial recor......
  • Lightbourne v. McCollum
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 1, 2007
    ...postconviction relief, which was denied by the circuit court. This Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief in Lightbourne v. State, 471 So.2d 27 (Fla.1985). Lightbourne filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court, which initially stayed the execution ......
  • State v. Riechmann
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 24, 2000
    ...including consideration of the attorney's tactical decisions. See State v. Bolender, 503 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla.1987); Lightbourne v. State, 471 So.2d 27, 28 (Fla.1985). A second factor is whether cross-examination of the State's expert brings out the expert's weaknesses and whether those we......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT