Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Koons v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Accordingly, a court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the defendant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure or there was no good cause for the failure of the defendant or defendant's counsel to have asserted those grounds in a prior motion.”); id. at (c)(5) (“The motion . . . must also include an explanation of . . . if a prev | 1 | 1 |
Freeman v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The movant in a postconviction motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 in a capital case is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if "(1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the [movant] is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Spaziano v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Although Rule 3.850(c)(4) precludes the filing of additional Rule 3.850 motions without a statement of "the reason or reasons the claim or claims . . . were not raised in the former motion," see Spaziano v. State, 545 So.2d 843, 844 (Fla. 1989) ("[u]nless petitioner shows the justification for failure to raise the present issue in the first petition, the second successive petition pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 may be dismissed as an abuse of procedure"), Hepburn filed three additional petitions within the two-year period in which Rule 3.850 petitions generally may be fil | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2002A successive motion shall not exceed 25 pages, exclusive of attachments, and shall include: (A) all of the pleading requirements of an initial motion under subdivision (e)(1); (B) the disposition of all previous claims raised in postconviction proceedings and the reason or reasons the claim or claims raised in the present motion were not raised in the former motion or motions; (C) if based upon newly discovered evidence, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the following: (i) the 2002A successive motion shall not exceed 25 pages, exclusive of attachments, and shall include: (A) all of the pleading requirements of an initial motion under subdivision (e)(1); (B) the disposition of all previous claims raised in postconviction proceedings and the reason or reasons the claim or claims raised in the present motion were not raised in the former motion or motions; (C) if based upon newly discovered evidence, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the following: (i) the | 3 | 2001–2002 |
Giglio v. United States
green
2 sentences2002A successive motion shall not exceed 25 pages, exclusive of attachments, and shall include: (A) all of the pleading requirements of an initial motion under subdivision (e)(1); (B) the disposition of all previous claims raised in postconviction proceedings and the reason or reasons the claim or claims raised in the present motion were not raised in the former motion or motions; (C) if based upon newly discovered evidence, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the following: (i) the 2002A successive motion shall not exceed 25 pages, exclusive of attachments, and shall include: (A) all of the pleading requirements of an initial motion under subdivision (e)(1); (B) the disposition of all previous claims raised in postconviction proceedings and the reason or reasons the claim or claims raised in the present motion were not raised in the former motion or motions; (C) if based upon newly discovered evidence, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the following: (i) the | 3 | 2001–2002 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016We also reiterate the requirements for proving a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that were set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2062 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2016We also reiterate the requirements for proving a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that were set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2062 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1994Initially, defendant's motion is patently insufficient in that it fails to include the information required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(c), namely, "whether there was an appeal from the judgment or sentence and the disposition thereof," "whether a previous postconviction motion has been filed, and if so, how many," and, "if a previous motion or motions have been filed, the reason or reasons the claim or claims in the present motion were not raised in the former motion or motions." See Williams v. State, 539 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |