ohreviewifaomthedistrict cogkt of · successive underrule 9.141(d)(6)(c). petitioner is cautioned...

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, ÎXSo.ia 114,11^/0^ ft. Sîq. Xaox).

/;(f=l<».

V. WAyK^rv^ô^ Â6 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 !/»£ 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 Chalitnê 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 ChaHenînj ?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 iÛ^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$ alô 5«ppor^t?d by ai? memorandum of ct&t UuJS and facfS

J^t+zOnCpês 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 fê mer.'+s of /4>e Clîms in

;d a manif-est injustice.

kasnotopriltnteAMSwe Claim qja/ândas 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+âf #>»S Casc ôaM 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 fê 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 êdlii'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 andfêrd/sfiCf cour+ of

«rc*f H»t Supreme court on Hit Samtûeshion ^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 âf 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}iô«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'êSKon of cûse ht a procedural dfrfAujf ôes no+ +urh on whefher Counsel erred or

on+h6K#nrfoferror Counsel way have wade. So long AS 4<tefrnÂnt fSrepreieh+ed by

Counsel whose ftrôrmû 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^«ôrfS 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 exKûst,'on docfê ê«erau»/ ttû'ttti thaf an Jneffecîve a$5isâ«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«'êsf jnjuifê

ing. SftfeftflKtfV.Sfafer<7« $».U ajA,ilu (R^0OH)C^%H^ C.T..

^ of habeas corpus"^ ensîf;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

/cê, tti i^/«' ftH Flflr^q Courts. Sec afso 7anâSor> 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€ ptîfon&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; â/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~

ohreviewifaomthedistrict cogkt of · successive underrule 9.141(d)(6)(c). petitioner is cautioned...

Documents