Leeto L. Allen v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leeto L. Allen v. State of Florida

212 So. 3d 1112, 2017 WL 1014424, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3487

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D15-5476

StatusPublished

This text of 212 So. 3d 1112 (Leeto L. Allen v. State of Florida) 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

Leeto L. Allen v. State of Florida, 212 So. 3d 1112, 2017 WL 1014424, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3487 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Leeto L. Allen appeals from the final order of the lower court denying his motions for postconviction relief. Those motions and Allen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus—which the lower court converted to a motion for postconviction relief—all raised the same arguments: Allen’s convictions and sentences should be vacated because the presiding trial court judge did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on his competency following the issuance of an October 5, 2010, competency evaluation finding him competent to proceed to trial, and did not enter an order expressly finding him competent to proceed. Important to our assessment of Allen’s contentions, Allen did not file a direct appeal.

The lower court was correct in denying Allen relief. “The competency issue is procedurally barred because it should have been raised on direct appeal.” Patton v. State, 784 So.2d 380, 393 (Fla. 2000) (citing Johnston v. Dugger, 583 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 1991)); accord Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 312, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (a defendant’s claim that the trial court “erred in failing to follow procedures to ensure competency can and must be raised on direct appeal only”) (emphasis in original) (citing Nelson v. State, 43 So.3d 20, 33 (Fla. 2010)), rev. denied, 107 So.3d 407 (Fla. 2012). Likewise, a defendant’s substantive claim that he or she has a due process right not to be proceeded against while incompetent can be raised on direct appeal and is procedurally barred from being raised in a postconviction motion. Carroll v. State, 815 So.2d 601, 609-10 (Fla. 2002); Patton, 784 So.2d at 393.

Aden did not raise his claim on direct appeal. Therefore, Allen is procedurally barred from raising it in a postconviction motion.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Leeto L. Allen appeals from the final order of the lower court denying his motions for postconviction relief. Those motions and Allen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus—which the lower court converted to a motion for postconviction relief—all raised the same arguments: Allen’s convictions and sentences should be vacated because the presiding trial court judge did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on his competency following the issuance of an October 5, 2010, competency evaluation finding him competent to proceed to trial, and did not enter an order expressly finding him competent to proceed. Important to our assessment of Allen’s contentions, Allen did not file a direct appeal.

The lower court was correct in denying Allen relief. “The competency issue is procedurally barred because it should have been raised on direct appeal.” Patton v. State, 784 So.2d 380, 393 (Fla. 2000) (citing Johnston v. Dugger, 583 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 1991)); accord Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 312, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (a defendant’s claim that the trial court “erred in failing to follow procedures to ensure competency can and must be raised on direct appeal only”) (emphasis in original) (citing Nelson v. State, 43 So.3d 20, 33 (Fla. 2010)), rev. denied, 107 So.3d 407 (Fla. 2012). Likewise, a defendant’s substantive claim that he or she has a due process right not to be proceeded against while incompetent can be raised on direct appeal and is procedurally barred from being raised in a postconviction motion. Carroll v. State, 815 So.2d 601, 609-10 (Fla. 2002); Patton, 784 So.2d at 393.

Aden did not raise his claim on direct appeal. Therefore, Allen is procedurally barred from raising it in a postconviction motion.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 So. 3d 1112, 2017 WL 1014424, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leeto-l-allen-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack