Robinson claim in Florida

2018Cf. id. at 38 .

2018Cf. id. at 38 .

2025On its face, then, Folsom's rule 3.800(a) motion failed to state a basis for relief."), review dismissed, No. SC2024-0832, 2024 WL 2838298 (Fla. June 5, 2024); Robinson v. State, 365 So. 3d 467 , 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (concluding that Robinson's claim was "not 12 cognizable under rule 3.800(a)," where "the sentences he received were technically not illegal because they could have been imposed under Florida's sentencing laws").

2014On remand, the trial court shall reconsider the motion in light of the requirements of section 64.081 and the considerations outlined in Adler v. Schekter, 197 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).

2012Id.

2006Therefore, the postconviction court found that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the increased sentence or for failing to file a motion to withdraw Robinson's plea. *567 "[W]here timely appearance for sentencing is made a condition of a plea agreement, a non-willful failure to appear will not vitiate the agreement and permit the trial court to impose some greater sentence." Johnson, 501 So.2d at 160-61 .

2005Robinson II, 761 So.2d at 273-78. [4] Robinson's motion alleged: (1) denial of right to effective representation by the short time period and lack of funding; (2) denial of access to records; (3) his prior convictions are unreliable because no adversarial testing occurred due to the cumulative effects of ineffective assistance of counsel, the withholding of exculpatory or impeachment material, newly discovered evidence, and/or improper rulings by the trial court; (4) counsel ineffectively failed to investigate and prepare; (5) Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985

2005Robinson II, 761 So.2d at 273-78. [4] Robinson's motion alleged: (1) denial of right to effective representation by the short time period and lack of funding; (2) denial of access to records; (3) his prior convictions are unreliable because no adversarial testing occurred due to the cumulative effects of ineffective assistance of counsel, the withholding of exculpatory or impeachment material, newly discovered evidence, and/or improper rulings by the trial court; (4) counsel ineffectively failed to investigate and prepare; (5) Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985

2005Robinson II, 761 So.2d at 273-78. [4] Robinson's motion alleged: (1) denial of right to effective representation by the short time period and lack of funding; (2) denial of access to records; (3) his prior convictions are unreliable because no adversarial testing occurred due to the cumulative effects of ineffective assistance of counsel, the withholding of exculpatory or impeachment material, newly discovered evidence, and/or improper rulings by the trial court; (4) counsel ineffectively failed to investigate and prepare; (5) Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985

2005Id. at 273 n. 4.

2004Second, we address Robinson's claim that he is entitled to relief because Florida's standard jury instructions in capital cases violate Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). [7] Specifically, Robinson claims that Florida's standard jury instructions in capital cases do not comply with Caldwell , in light of the Ring opinion, because Ring requires the jury to play a vital role in sentencing and the jury instructions currently diminish that role.

2004Second, we address Robinson's claim that he is entitled to relief because Florida's standard jury instructions in capital cases violate Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). [7] Specifically, Robinson claims that Florida's standard jury instructions in capital cases do not comply with Caldwell , in light of the Ring opinion, because Ring requires the jury to play a vital role in sentencing and the jury instructions currently diminish that role.

2004HABEAS CORPUS First, we address Robinson's claim that he is entitled to have his death sentence vacated in light of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) (finding Arizona's capital sentencing statute to be unconstitutional "to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for the imposition of the death penalty").

2004HABEAS CORPUS First, we address Robinson's claim that he is entitled to have his death sentence vacated in light of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) (finding Arizona's capital sentencing statute to be unconstitutional "to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for the imposition of the death penalty").

2002State v. Oehling, 750 So.2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

2000In Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000), the supreme court reviewed Leonard v. State, 731 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), which it found directly conflicted with this court's opinion in Stone on the question of whether section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), poses a jurisdictional bar to appellate review following the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.

2000Following the federal standard in analyzing a claim of racial discrimination in the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty, we have held that the claimant, in order to prevail, "must prove that the decision-makers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose." Foster v. State, 614 So.2d 455, 463 (Fla.1992) (quoting McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292 , 107 S.Ct. 1756 , 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987)).

2000Following the federal standard in analyzing a claim of racial discrimination in the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty, we have held that the claimant, in order to prevail, "must prove that the decision-makers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose." Foster v. State, 614 So.2d 455, 463 (Fla.1992) (quoting McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292 , 107 S.Ct. 1756 , 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987)).

2000Further, uniformity in reporting results among the districts is important to assist in measuring and comparing appellate court dispositions. [11] Accordingly, the district courts should affirm summarily utilizing the procedure set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) [12] when the court determines that an appeal does not present: (1) a legally dispositive issue that was expressly reserved for appellate review pursuant to section 924.051(4); [13] (2) an issue concerning whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as set forth in Robinson ; or (3) a preserved sent

2000In Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000), the supreme court reviewed Leonard v. State, 731 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), which it found directly conflicted with this court's opinion in Stone on the question of whether section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), poses a jurisdictional bar to appellate review following the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.

2000The Hughes court stated that when an appellant in this posture moves for appointment of appellate counsel, “[i]f the trial court finds that the right of appeal has been waived and the movant fails to demonstrate the existence of a viable Robinson issue, such a motion may be properly denied.” Id.

2000The First District clarified Hughes in Ford v. State, 575 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

1999In support of this claim, Robinson points to our decision in Hoskins v. State, 702 So.2d 202 (Fla.1997), wherein we ordered a new penalty phase proceeding where the trial court improperly denied the defendant's request for a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan.

1998Clark v. State, 690 So.2d 1280 , 1282 n. 3 (Fla.1997); Chandler v. Dugger, 634 So.2d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 1994).