Rogers v. Singletary, No. 86768

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtSHAW; KOGAN; ANSTEAD; ANSTEAD
Citation698 So.2d 1178
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly S503, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S561 Jerry Layne ROGERS, Petitioner, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 86768
Decision Date27 November 1996

Page 1178

698 So.2d 1178
21 Fla. L. Weekly S503, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S561
Jerry Layne ROGERS, Petitioner,
v.
Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., Respondent.
No. 86768.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov. 27, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1997.

Jerrel Phillips, Tallahassee; and John G. Buchanan, III, Timothy C. Hester, William J. Shieber, Benedict M. Lenhart and Michael S. Long of Convington & Burling, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Mark S. Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Page 1179

SHAW, Justice.

Jerry Layne Rogers petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus reversing his conviction and sentence on the ground that his appellate counsel was ineffective. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. We deny the petition.

In 1984, Rogers was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing the manager of a Winn-Dixie supermarket during an attempted robbery. In 1987, this Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, and in 1989, Rogers filed a 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. See Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 513 (Fla.1993); Rogers v. State, 511 So.2d 526 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988). In his appeal of his 3.850 motion, Rogers raised a claim pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), but this Court never reached its merits. The Court reversed the denial of the motion on procedural grounds and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing.

The state argues that Rogers' petition is time-barred by the two-year limitation imposed for rule 3.850 motions. We disagree. The time limitations set forth in rule 3.850(b) do not apply to writs of habeas corpus; subdivision (b) addresses motions to vacate, set aside, or correct sentences and states in pertinent part:

(b) Time Limitations. A motion to vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time. No other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final in a noncapital case or more than 1 year after the judgment and sentence become final in a capital case in which a death sentence has been imposed unless it alleges that

(1) the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, or

(2) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively.

In 1989, when Rogers filed his rule 3.850 motion, there was no time limitation for filing writs of habeas corpus. In 1994, rule 3.851(b)(2) became effective, requiring that writs be filed simultaneously with the initial brief on appeal of a 3.850 motion:

(b) Time Limitation.

....

(2) All petitions for extraordinary relief in which the Supreme Court of Florida has original jurisdiction, including petitions for writ of habeas corpus, shall be filed simultaneously with the initial brief filed on behalf of the death-sentenced prisoner in the appeal of the circuit court's order on the rule 3.850 motion.

Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.851(b)(2). Rogers filed his appeal of the 3.850 motion before the effective date of rule 3.851(b)(2); thus it did not apply and his petition is not time-barred.

In the instant petition, Rogers claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the Faretta claim on direct appeal of his conviction and death sentence. Rogers maintains that he was permitted to represent himself at his murder trial in violation of the constitutional standard set forth in Faretta and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(5), 1 because the court inquired only into his competence to represent himself, and neither warned him of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation as required by Faretta, nor renewed the offer of assistance of counsel after voir dire or before the penalty phase of the proceedings as required by rule 3.111(d)(5). Rogers contends that if his counsel had raised the Faretta claim on appeal, his conviction and sentence would have been reversed. We disagree.

Page 1180

To determine whether appellate counsel was ineffective, our evaluation is limited to

"first, whether the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and, second, whether the deficiency in performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result."

Groover v. Singletary, 656 So.2d 424, 425 (Fla.1995) (quoting Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 951, 107 S.Ct. 1617, 94 L.Ed.2d 801 (1987)). Although an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on the premise that the omitted argument would have been meritorious if raised, the underlying legal issue is not before this Court on its merits. See Pope, 496 So.2d at 800. We address the merits of the Faretta 2 issue to the extent necessary to dispose of Rogers' claim.

Faretta requires that once a defendant asserts the right of self-representation, the court must conduct an inquiry to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel. Waterhouse v. State, 596 So.2d 1008, 1014 (Fla.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 957, 113 S.Ct. 418, 121 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). The Faretta Court stated:

Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Holland v. Florida, No. 12–12404.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 29 Diciembre 2014
    ...a general understanding of his rights and that his decision to proceed without counsel was made with eyes open.”); Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Fla.1996) (“We find that the Faretta standards were met in the instant case because the record establishes that Rogers knew what he ......
  • Holland v. State, No. 12–12404.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 29 Diciembre 2014
    ...a general understanding of his rights and that his decision to proceed without counsel was made with eyes open.”); Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Fla.1996) (“We find that the Faretta standards were met in the instant case because the record establishes that Rogers knew what he ......
  • Holland v. State, No. 12–12404.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 29 Diciembre 2014
    ...a general understanding of his rights and that his decision to proceed without counsel was made with eyes open.”); Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Fla.1996) (“We find that the Faretta standards were met in the instant case because the record establishes that Rogers knew what he ......
  • Ingraham v. State, No. 2D06-4541.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 28 Abril 2010
    ...is over, and the defendant may proceed unrepresented." (quoting State v. Bowen, 698 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla.1997))); Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1178, 1180 (Fla.1996) ("Faretta requires that once a defendant asserts the right of self-representation, the court must conduct an inquiry to dete......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Holland v. State, No. 12–12404.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 29 Diciembre 2014
    ...a general understanding of his rights and that his decision to proceed without counsel was made with eyes open.”); Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Fla.1996) (“We find that the Faretta standards were met in the instant case because the record establishes that Rogers knew what he ......
  • Holland v. State, No. 12–12404.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 29 Diciembre 2014
    ...a general understanding of his rights and that his decision to proceed without counsel was made with eyes open.”); Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Fla.1996) (“We find that the Faretta standards were met in the instant case because the record establishes that Rogers knew what he ......
  • Holland v. Florida, No. 12–12404.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 29 Diciembre 2014
    ...a general understanding of his rights and that his decision to proceed without counsel was made with eyes open.”); Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Fla.1996) (“We find that the Faretta standards were met in the instant case because the record establishes that Rogers knew what he ......
  • Ingraham v. State, No. 2D06-4541.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 28 Abril 2010
    ...over, and the defendant may proceed unrepresented." (quoting State v. Bowen, 698 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla.1997))); Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1178, 1180 (Fla.1996) ("Faretta requires that once a defendant asserts the right of self-representation, the court must conduct an inquiry ......
  • 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