Hix v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hix v. State

881 So. 2d 586, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8546, 2004 WL 1359631

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-2860

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 881 So. 2d 586 (Hix v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hix v. State, 881 So. 2d 586, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8546, 2004 WL 1359631 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

TORPY, J.

In this postconviction proceeding, Appellant raises one point on appeal — whether the lower court erred in summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion because Appellant’s claim could have been raised on direct appeal. We affirm.

In his motion for postconviction relief, Appellant raised two Faretta¹ claims relating to the trial court’s denial of his request to represent himself. The trial court summarily denied the motion, ruling that these claims were procedurally barred because they could have been asserted in Appellant’s direct appeal. We agree. See Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506, 509 n. 5 (Fla.1999) (trial court’s alleged failure to conduct adequate Faretta inquiry should have been challenged by direct appeal; rule 3.850 motion properly denied as procedurally barred); Bundy v. State, 497 So.2d 1209, 1210 (Fla.1986) (claim that defendant was denied proper Faretta hearing procedurally barred in rule 3.850 motion because it could have been raised in direct appeal); accord Raulerson v. State, 437 So.2d 1105 (Fla.1983); Kilpatrick v. State, 658 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TORPY, J.

In this postconviction proceeding, Appellant raises one point on appeal — whether the lower court erred in summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion because Appellant’s claim could have been raised on direct appeal. We affirm.

In his motion for postconviction relief, Appellant raised two Faretta¹ claims relating to the trial court’s denial of his request to represent himself. The trial court summarily denied the motion, ruling that these claims were procedurally barred because they could have been asserted in Appellant’s direct appeal. We agree. See Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506, 509 n. 5 (Fla.1999) (trial court’s alleged failure to conduct adequate Faretta inquiry should have been challenged by direct appeal; rule 3.850 motion properly denied as procedurally barred); Bundy v. State, 497 So.2d 1209, 1210 (Fla.1986) (claim that defendant was denied proper Faretta hearing procedurally barred in rule 3.850 motion because it could have been raised in direct appeal); accord Raulerson v. State, 437 So.2d 1105 (Fla.1983); Kilpatrick v. State, 658 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

881 So. 2d 586, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8546, 2004 WL 1359631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hix-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack