State v. Green, 84-592
| Decision Date | 11 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-592,84-592 |
| Citation | 476 So.2d 321,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2332 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2332 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jimmie Dwight GREEN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ann Garrison Paschall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Douglas A. Wallace, Bradenton, for appellee.
The state appeals the order of the circuit court granting defendant's motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure. We reverse.
Defendant's motion alleged three grounds, one of which was conceded by defendant to be insufficient, was not relied upon by the trial court, and is not an issue on appeal. We conclude that the other two grounds were (1) that, contrary to the requirements set forth in the case law, e.g., Parker v. State, 423 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), there was an insufficient inquiry into defendant's request that his court appointed counsel be discharged, and (2) that defendant's guilty plea to the charge of possessing a firearm in violation of Florida Statute § 790.23 was coerced because the defendant pleaded guilty to that charge only after the request referred to in ground (1) was denied.
Ground (2) is inextricably related to and dependent upon ground (1) because if defendant was not entitled to the inquiry referred to in ground (1) (and to the discharge of court appointed defense counsel) there could have been no "coercion" of the guilty plea of the type referred to in ground (2). Therefore, if ground (1) provides an insufficient basis for relief, ground (2) is also insufficient.
Ground (1) did not provide sufficient grounds for relief because matters which could have been raised on direct appeal may not be raised in a rule 3.850 motion. Jones v. State, 446 So.2d 1059 (Fla.1984); Smith v. State, 444 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Williams v. State, 427 So.2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); and Parker v. State, supra. Whether or not the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for a discharge of counsel by failing to follow the proper procedures as required by the case law could have been determined from the record on direct appeal.
We note that on his prior direct appeal to this court defendant unsuccessfully argued that the trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance of the trial so that defendant could be represented by private counsel. To the extent that defendant's rule 3.850 motion might arguably be construed to incorporate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savala v. State
...DCA 1988); Johnson v. State, 486 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Fratello v. State, 496 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); State v. Green, 476 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); State v. Prieto, 439 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Perez v. State, 390 So.2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Williams v. State, 353 ......
-
Kott v. State
...not erroneous where complete record showed no irreconcilable conflict which seriously impaired attorney's usefulness); State v. Green, 476 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (no error caused by the court's failure to conduct inquiry where defendant effectively withdrew request for discharge of co......
-
Jenkins v. State, 2D01-420.
...the proper procedures as required by the case law could have been determined from the record on direct appeal." State v. Green, 476 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Therefore, the claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. Id.; Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c) ("This rule does not authorize ......