View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
IN THf SUPREME COURT OF F
T. &URRVO&HS,Petitioner,
OF FLORIDA,
OH REVIEW IFAOM THE DISTRICT COGkT OF
FIRST D]ST/lfCT5TATF OF FlORJOfi
, Florid*
70 fioA/OI, RTTOkNW GltitRKL
Of LBfiflL
PL-D!, THF CA/>/TOiL
TABU GP CONTENT
TH£ Oensio/J OF T«r DISTfltfr COURT OF f|PP£«l iH TH/S
CFISE IN DZHYIM HNO D/5Ai/S5fZ) rHf PErmOMEfi'S
ERROfi CLfllM iWHi^ ffT/T/O^S flLU-
55fSTflNCf OF AfP£Li.flT
W/TMOUT REflrH/AlS 7Hf MERITS OF T«£ CLAIMS
ft MflVlFtST IWJUiT^f EXPAESUY flA/0
CO/VF1KT W/TH ITS OWA/ D£c/S|0A/O« df
Vtm\CT COUR7 of
COU«7 OWT«
TftflLE OfCHfiTlOhlS , . . - . - *
STflTIMfTOf T//£ CfiSt f\Nb FftCTS. . « . . 3-5
. , , ... to
OF SkRVUt /•
of cqmpurnce . - .
COURT ORbE*s(Pth App* /Bft /J/Pfi*. fipp.l&P< /^a
RUtESOF COURT
. p. ^.
CflSfj TABU OFCrWlOtfS pflJ,f5
S
9
v. ftejicr, ^IXSo.ia 114,11^/0^ ft. S^iq. Xaox).
/;(f=l<».
V. WAyK^rv^^o^ ^A6 U,5.
COAlSTlTUTiON
10
STflT£MfTOF THfCftSE flA/O FACTS
On or atanj Decewier 9, AO/6/ Hie pef/floner VieA h.'s P/rif PeW* for M/r
Habeas Corpus alle^'ng Jneffccf.'ve AS5i's^ncfi of afpeJfete tounit\(p<k$ts |-
i'th a memorandum pases 1-21^ under fta fl. hpp. ft 9./H/(c) ^j/ifij. T^>e peHtidn
ied un<l«r-Hie above hile tt^.fbou+ fhe cour-f opinion -Fifed
ID 10-6*71, See atfacked (fief, fl/)^. <«P. /).
On ftpr;/ a^ aort, ^hepefif/dnerflleJ *j^ Sefend or iautWvc pttlfon
Court cm ttack fhe rwer/ti <»f h.'S flA.'wS r^/sed ('n
^frf-Kon tt»as f/led unJ*c tU.R.fyp. P. W
1-13) wMM« memorandum. An^l Me Courf DftMiSiedi +hefasc
f^»e 5a»rt« abd^e r«/« utl+houi optnltn f;je<* May
IB P. Or
OnJt<ne XI, 201h k Cai&HlDihiH6H.Tki ptMiomfilti b.'s ft
Honorable CouH- graof Wm a neu apjota/anJ Ji>e^f f Ke oWcf of- A/anty
•to
tioniVMon For Wr/f of Habe^5 Corpus aiitging f'
Counsel
ISSUES in !/ȣ Motion for J^wenf of fl(f/^laM fb
,'fs op^.'on on
tout} he mh'ef on the theory fW A/s appellee caunsel
.Ve for fn'>i!n$ fo Chalitn^e the. SuPftaeniy of#»e ev'Jtnce. Burroughs'fa
petition rq/Si'ng fJn'S Cklm maS Un+imttf and denied eft Such.The Court
nnistaken 4htntnn/t tkH,tfit pe+Mvoner Js ChaHen^inj ?n AlJ f^rtfd of his
ma GtooNbi: Jtmimt coumh MKmwic\t\iit imffnTMfon
TO Rh\$K O>/ THE ORt&Attfl DIRECT MPtM. Ttt PMPtRCf PmtRV£t> MOTlOtf POR
Of ACQUltm W«fl?EA^ YH£ COURT fR^fD
THB ST«T
OBJf\)tJ AWHLflUT'S C0/JWC710N tfi
Of THE SIXTH FWD FOURTH-AITH flM0NDAtBA/TS. See^/io $«/>forf,v»g
second pe+l4!on(p*$eS %-6),dnJ+U+hrtJ petiHon(pn$ts Z~
T<ie slrucfural -Form«^for pe+/fion6 preserve** by role ^.Wd.
Butroues' Second person toas HKetftie untimely, hiteJ to &\\e$t any
an exception +6 +he+ime i^U^tAn^n^.'ii addition
for ex&mplt Me d4+a<:/>e<* (Pe4* flpj>. 18 P.
one 6
Me Cafe Wtfhouf ^,'uen art opinltn unjer F/o. R. ^, ft
rJf S
TJi< Ground i;uto$ al^o 5«ppor^t?d by ai? memorandum of ct&t UuJS and facfS
J^t+zOnCp^es 7-/ij and /w fi»e -ffcrM ft'led
June 23,1<>H.CaSe* IDti-Wfyfh&
Shot/Id feC6/)i;d«r its ri/l/ng anJ reaiK f^e mer.'+s of /4>e Cl^ims in
;d a manif-est injustice.
kasnotopriltnteAMSwe Claim qja/^andas bi,'*h hii fosf pefift
/ne Itaf f*»s Ctolm ,'5 ptoctl*rAl\y barred &<yfh 4$ untimely under rufet
»Vi permissibly Successive unAtr rale lim(<A&)fc) See aHached opinion
-filed July M/Aa//. fose*M Dlj^f^flH «pf' ><"/! W).
TMe court alto erroneously miS+tKen as r+ Afield infP»e1Voric£
T^je p«+/+*>ner asser+^af #>»S Casc ^oaM nof btf /e$4f procedural}*
under #»e 4bove «Mtes +fl dd 50 uiduid Cons+itaH a Violation of Petitioner's
u;erd no maf/dn for ReUe&rlng ft'led, and f^e petitioner's nbVce +0
mvoxe iht discretionary jurisdiction of ibis courf utasHtnety filed on a«b-
US4 19, ion.
SUMHm Of THE fiK&titABfiT
The sole ZsSues JnWs case, ,'S +/>af+hc ^edlii'on //, Dfin;cJ, *nj D.'sm&eJ the
feMiontr* constitutional errar cUim'th ht$ petitions a\\eginj ineffective ert$:-
sUnce of a/fe/late Co«n«/tU.'f/jouf reafh/n^ Me mfir,'+s of fAe
ief Wi'f ,'4S Ou)n deci$',on,or of andf^erd/sfiCf cour+ of
«rc*f H»t Supreme court on Hit Samt^ueshion ^f h^ r« Mekoy v.
"Hie Florida Supreme Cbari f»aid»scfe+»dn«ry JurisdicVidh H rev/eu) a decis
ion of <\ dis+tlc¥ court- of appeal ^af eXprcsily an<J dlruUtf Cdnfiic+s uitt-h 4
decfSi'on of 4Jie supreme Cour+ or ano+Kcr di'sfrv'cf fdurf <rf Appeal <Jn -the Same
THf DECI5IOAI oFTHf DJSTflKT WUftTOF BPPf/JL W THIS CASE
flA/O D/SMISSEO THE PEflTIOMEH'S COA/STlTUTIflMfil. ERROR CLflJM HI
H/S PHITIOAfS NUEtWf /AlBFffCTIVf flSSISTflWCf OF fippmATf
Counsel without R&flcwiwG Twe aikrits of tm uoms bNo
BflRREO flS UAfrfMHY flAID SUCCESS/?! MDER ROLES 1
1J1I0&YO COAJSTrrUTfD fl M«MIFfSTIA/jUSr/Cf EX
fSSIY f)MI> DIRtCUY COAIfLlCT WITH ITS OWA/ Of tISIOAl or of
OTHtR DISTRICT COURT OF WBU DKKlON OR OF 1M SUFREMB
COURT OA/ TH^ SflMt QofSTJOA/ of Lf)l IA/ McKflVV.STflT^W So.
case, the court decliion Jn pf&ce4aral/« btfrzA as ar»f5»nely and SaCcess-
1*6 undue Aufe* 9.J4iW)ftAna ?.lm(aife)fc). Jkt pt+Montt's ConStliutiotial error
cjarmsinht's pe+i'Kons ai/f/iouj- reACMhj fh« rntriH, Wai err^r. For *-m/o rtaions
(1) The. Cour^Ct>uy no4 legally pnceAurally harrM as un^/nely anA Suutttiveun
der iki atove rtii«$ UseJ on f/.e atscn* of
a
of Aj»pef/ci+e Cowhsei on
X
on d<te<4 review unless, i
mi's fed
ecHa.R4pp. P. ?.
.V DCft 2061);
Whth re.vi£U);(\g 4ht petitioner's second or Successive peVMonlp^tsq-ll), ,'f
SKoo)S
The Court 'int-erpctel thai ftha«J anther»ty to de«y the sC£Qn<l or SwcuSSrVe
un+5>ne/y suctfiiSjVe m{HiButre4<.)w'n3 tV»« wef/fs of pefif/oner'
error CI«,Vi$ t4}i^o«freco9nu»n9 +te Afcsertf of StCtlons(dM5)f
•fhe rules t.HI fia.fi. flpp. ft Addition #»atfhe ex£6ffiM *i aJ^tre </»ur
men'fS
d <aS Successive fk& courf hnus+
v/ous orjehs ©f Jenr'ai prav/h^ He previous pefWdn* ^«<l -H)£ Mer.'fJ o
71* Sd.aJ *73i"0Fl« ln<l D^ft
Status ^44 fKe Court f4,'|e4 +©
of-W»c troneous «fferhey^ error on a/>feal See Murray V. Carrkfr^77 0.5.g-f
TJiC'^eSKon of c^use ht a procedural dfrfAujf ^oes no+ +urh on whefher Counsel erred or
on+h6K#nrfoferror Counsel way have wade. So long AS 4<tefrn^Ant fSrepreieh+ed by
Counsel whose ftr^orm^u y,i no+ c«ris4-i|-uf»o«aily ineffective tinker +Kc SianiarJ cs+atr
no rh«^H^y in rtfulr/nj pe4-f-Koner fo btar the ri*$K of a*forftey error *ktf
existence of ciust for a procedural
Can She«J H\a4 Sow\
#ie4efeK5e Mrtpeded Go«nicI^«^orfS to Cowp/y to.'+h tkfi ^HfS protC-
rule, W/i/terfifeffectfve AiSr5t<»«t« of Counstt ConStliuHS Ca«S€ fora precc<laral d&t-
hc exK^ust,'on docf^e ^e«erau»/ tt^u'ttti thaf an Jneffec^ive a$5is^a«vce
iM \je freseofd«| td 4Ke S+a-fe Supreme conrf v an .'ndepen<ie»ntClaim before .'+
be used to evf-nbUsh c*i&c f<sr e* pTocedural defauii-tn PcicrAi h«ke«s ptaceed-
In y.
e iWffec4;ve assisj-Hnce of appellate Co<f«5eJ« fl/fhea^h his petition u>»s UnK
i«/ under Fiava. Rfp. ft--1.i¥ifc)lAf6) Ke«sserfs +ha+ Considers to* ©I K;s c\a!t« is
a m^nlfes+injttiKce. See
bar, ht
5ee
Mere-fhecourtKnisfUf a mA«'^esf jnjuif^e
ing. SftfeftflKtfV.Sfafer<7« $».U ajA,ilu (R^0OH)C^%H^ C.T..
^ of habeas corpus"^ ens^if;n«c( /n oar coniHj-it+lon H beusei ai
-ho Carcerf-manifest in)ush'ces ant ite&V<\il4W<+y for use when a//
tes han beeh eVhfluyfed tas served our soe'efy we// over /ray
, 7?»f's co«rf will, of course, remii'n aferf fo Cfa^ws of manifest
/c^e, tti i^/«' ftH Flflr^q Courts. Sec afso 7an^aSor> v.
J«r;$JicKon 4-hA+ a me<n Is he)n) ilie^Hy ffiitrcilned of Ws l&effy If is
SutK c»/3/)ropr.?<3fe order as t*i/
Xr\ fk'.i Case, answer 5oie f55oe-fWaf «i€ pt^ifon&t aSK€<* fhe court fc
<l<ire$5 regar^'nf) p&tftionet1s procedural due froctss $ut\ran+ttd by
+he S+affe ^*J fii«'ie<* 4-0 prove +K^^£fey5un uiai ncf a rttxtyun
f<Sf/mon^ offh< apjjef/«n</ And SoMzA+o yivea reasonable jfciS+rfJ
Son uJhy officer Cus<sH4; ^a/ied fo 90 mfo fhe ap/Jeil^rti's
3«+ Hit MACK d-u&le Ug a-Pfer bt!n$ hoiJ fo c/d SO. Ha4 55/
&pf>ellon-Kou/<*h«iV£ presenUAt'-f+o fh« j«ry And proved Ma+J+ uJoi a r«4/ +oy
gun and-ttiaf he is <xt+uttfly J/irvocenf. AppefUnt-AtteN-sfWhehaSA cor»*4«'+^»'»*a'
fi'3/j+ +a a fa»> fn'a/ Jree o-f K Arm far errors, this £our+ m«i+ f/nd c\$ ;f Jmi teen *te»»-
©ns+ra+ed above 4H4-ttifpt> (font has been depr/ved of <j fa.r 4-r,\[ and H»*f HiS Conv.Y-k'on
was ol>M/n«d b^td on circ«m$Mn^'Al evidence, a sen'es oF Sf<\fk/hg of inferences,
«% 111'« WoMKon of fke SMckJnj of/n^crences doc|r<n e.Clearly,
t'n t^'
Above
p. i),(pe|.ftp/>.»8P.iVaftd(Pef. fipp» icfi i-a).
$hou>s fh«if fhcstf Seriows f^cfi Uas errDneo«5^rtore by i-he Courf.
on *kc 4j><we Iac{S/ fil^e^h h.'s pe4-;Koa UI45 HrvKrnely under Ha. R. Rpp. p. ?,
<r pfifnr C3e fW ConsM*ta+Jon of Kls
■ko a\Jt>i a m«\n«fe5f Jnju5W6 Mckay <«.,»► BflKfcKafe^ dSa;«/(AS
fce a/a^ prejudiced fcy A.'5 QppeMA+e
■Wter* is a
of
V. u.5.
Thus, \k( Cdqti touid
error Ci4»'m5 ond brush aS.'
<»S W.7/
•fec+Jve
or S/iou/d Aave ftl/ec/ on 4h£ m«N'
formal
on
approprra4-£ orieir
T/ief-
«n King V.
TKepe+Zf^
eife/y rtlt45e
Courf'5 aafkor»fy
to.xd ^,30
©F
Hp^^
«'i exercised
if$ Conf/iCf5-
4heje other 1-SSes kave be«r» properly V>r»dfeJ and argued a^d are A\ipos;Vve of Wit daft.
Savn.'g v. S+aie, i/11 So.id 3ft^(Fia. MSi)/ SflVona V, Prtid&ftJ-i'al Ins. CO. Of
error ClaJ^j 4k^4- aias reacheci on-fht mtrU-s UnAtr a\\ of Hit abate 4U*f>«»vfy.
Court Should exer<r,'se
rev/euJ the.tecti't /
C6h5}<kr +Kt rrver«*+S of Witpiti
OF
IH6AEBY CERTIFY +h<xf A
fonerai 0e4. of UgAi affairs
s trlcl r><\s httt\
Jo
Fla. 33HO3L/ and VHe
S+reef,
Courf F,<*f D;sffi£+ Courf of flp^ealS,
of
Of COMPtlWAltE
CtRTifY Mf4^is fcrlef Compiles ftj/fhfhe
t-f a. >3n
Charlie. 7.
Hive Junciidn Wot*
Pecan L<xnePROVmiD,OW
NSTITUT1QN ON JL——J-
6
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
CHARLIE J. BURROUGHS, NOT FINAL.JJNIIL.TIME EXPIRES..TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.
- - CASE44QOB1-U3464
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
Opinion filed July 22, 2011.
Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original
Jurisdiction.
Charlie J. Burroughs, pro se, Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
For the third time, Charlie Burroughs petitions the court for relief on the
theory that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence. Burroughs' first petition raising this claim was
untimely and denied as such. His second petition was likewise untimely, failed to
allege any meritorious basis for an exception to the time limitation, and in addition
was determined to be impermissibly successive. Burroughs has now presented the
same claim again, and as with his last petition, we determine that this claim is
procedurally barred both as untimely under rule 9.141(d)(5) and impermissibly
successive under rule 9.141(d)(6)(C). Petitioner is cautioned that the filing of any
further procedurally barred petitions claiming that appellate counsel was
ineffective in this case may result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not
limited to an order prohibiting petitioner from filing any further pro se pleadings in
this court.
Petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel DENIED and
DISMISSED.
VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR." :Cr^ ; fH~
Recommended