Smith v. State, 65561
Decision Date | 10 July 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 65561,65561 |
Citation | 453 So.2d 388 |
Parties | Jimmy Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Sarah Bleakley of Spriggs & Warren, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This case is before us on appeal from a dismissal with prejudice of Smith's second petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We also have before us a motion for stay of execution. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
We previously affirmed the imposition of the death penalty in Smith v. State, 407 So.2d 894 (Fla.1981), cert. denied 456 U.S. 984, 102 S.Ct. 2260, 72 L.Ed.2d 864 (1982), and the denial of Smith's first petition for post-conviction relief in Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 323 (Fla.1983), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 2671, 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984) (Smith II). Smith also joined 122 others seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional sentences of death, which claim was denied by Brown v. Wainwright, 392 So.2d 1327 (Fla.), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1000, 102 S.Ct. 542, 70 L.Ed.2d 407 (1981).
Smith presents six points in his second post-conviction petition. The trial court dismissed the petition "on grounds that this successive 3.850 motion is an abuse of the post-conviction process." We agree. All of the six points raised by Smith are issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are thus foreclosed from consideration under post-conviction relief. McRae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983).
Only two of Smith's arguments merit comment. Smith urges that the trial court erred in ruling that successive post-conviction motions are, per se, an abuse of process. Smith has misread the trial court's order which specifies that "this successive" (emphasis supplied) motion is an abuse of process. Smith also claims that certain psychiatric reports prepared on Smith when he was confined in a state juvenile facility were withheld by the state in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The state disclaims any knowledge of the existence or content of these reports. Smith's argument is unpersuasive. The fact that Smith had been confined in a juvenile facility was a fact peculiarly within the knowledge of Smith and his trial counsel. Any alleged withholding of psychiatric reports concerning that detention could have and should have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. This is particularly true in this instance in light of the fact that Smith's psychological condition was addressed at trial and on direct appeal. Smith does not now claim ineffective assistance of counsel but we note that such claim was made and rejected...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCarthan v. Jones
...2009) ("Florida law bars claims in a state post-conviction proceeding that could have been raised on direct appeal."); Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 1984) ("Issues which either were or could have been litigated at trial and upon direct appeal are not cognizable through collatera......
-
Farlin v. Jones
...2009) ("Florida law bars claims in a state post-conviction proceeding that could have been raised on direct appeal."); Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 1984) ("Issues which either were or could have been litigated at trial and upon direct appeal are not cognizable through collatera......
-
Smith v. Wainwright, 84-3448
...to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that judgment on appeal. Smith v. State, 453 So.2d 388 (Fla.1984) (Smith III ). On July 9, 1984, Smith filed his second federal habeas corpus petition. On July 11, 1984, without an evidentiary heari......
-
Cannon v. Dixon
......§. 2254. Doc. 1. Respondent (“the State”) answered,. providing relevant portions of the state court record. Doc. 10. Cannon ... See. Bailey v. Nagle , 172 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 1999);. see also Smith v. State , 453 So.2d 388, 389 (Fla. 1984) (claims that could have been raised on direct ......