Tanner v. State, 87-192
| Decision Date | 20 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-192,87-192 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 583 Michael Lanis TANNER, a/k/a Mickey Tanner, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Tanner appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
The present motion is the second filed by Tanner since his 1983 conviction and subsequent appeal, but the first motion to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Rather than address the merits of the motion, the court found that it constituted an abuse of the procedures set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because Tanner failed to state any basis for failing to raise the claim of ineffective counsel in his first motion.
Prior to a 1984 amendment, rule 3.850 provided that "[t]he sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner." In McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983), the supreme court interpreted this provision as barring only motions based on the same or similar grounds presented in a previous motion, and only then where the first motion was adjudicated on its merits. The court found no procedural impediment to successive motions stating substantially different legal grounds. However, effective January 1, 1985, rule 3.850 was amended to allow dismissal of successive motions "if the judge finds that [the second motion] fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds were alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the movant or his attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure governed by these rules." The supreme court has held that this rule change now imposes upon prisoners filing successive motions the affirmative duty of demonstrating why the grounds therein were not contained in the first motion. Christopher v. State, 489 So.2d 22 (Fla.1986); Witt v. State, 465 So.2d 510 (Fla.1985). This amendment, because it was procedural in nature only, is retroactive. Stewart v. State, 495 So.2d 164 (Fla.1986).
Because Tanner made no effort to justify his filing of a second motion raising additional grounds for relief, the trial court properly denied the motion. The order of the trial court is affirmed without prejudice to Tanner to file an amended motion setting forth any reasons he may have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harmon v. Barton
...why the grounds therein were not contained in the first motion. 5 Christopher v. State, 489 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla.1986); Tanner v. State, 502 So.2d 1008 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987). In order to establish justification for the failure to raise the issue in the first motion, for example, the petitione......
-
Bridges v. Dugger, 87-2245
...502 So.2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We see no reason to disavow that finding. Witt v. State, 465 So.2d 510 (Fla.1985); Tanner v. State, 502 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). It is clear, therefore, that even if we now permitted Bridges a direct appeal from the judgment and sentence the precise r......
-
Cintron v. State, 87-1173
...motions under rule 3.850 the present motion can be denied as repetitive. Witt v. State, 465 So.2d 510 (Fla.1985); Tanner v. State, 502 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial court could also find that the motion should be barred by laches, although we caution that the passage of time alon......
-
Gust v. State
...previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed as facially insufficient. McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983); Tanner v. State, 502 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Here, the state contends that Gust's previous motion, which alleged two substantially identical grounds as the one here......