Thomas v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Thomas v. State

486 So. 2d 577, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 174, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2010

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1986

DocketNo. 68588

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 486 So. 2d 577 (Thomas v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. State, 486 So. 2d 577, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 174, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2010 (Fla. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

BOYD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the order of the circuit court denying the motion of Daniel Morris Thomas for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the order of the trial court.

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes and was sentenced to death. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Thomas v. State, 374 So.2d 508 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 972, 100 S.Ct. 1666, 64 L.Ed.2d 249 (1980). He later filed a motion to vacate and a petition for habeas corpus. This Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief and denied the habeas petition. Thomas v. State, 421 So.2d 160 (Fla.1982). Thomas also sought a writ of habe-as corpus in United States District court. The court’s denial of relief was affirmed on appeal. Thomas v. Wainwright, 767 F.2d 738 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct 1241, 89 L.Ed.2d 349 (1986). Recently Thomas filed a second petition for habeas corpus with this Court. We denied the petition. Thomas v. Wainwright, 486 So.2d 574 (Fla.1986).

All of the claims in appellant’s current motion are matters that should have been raised at trial and on appeal, that could have been raised on appeal but were not, that were presented on appeal and decided adversely to appellant’s position, that were raised and rejected in one of appellant’s previous collateral challenges, or that were inexcusably omitted from his previous rule 3.850 motion. See Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1986). We therefore find [578]*578that the trial court was correct in denying the present motion without an evidentiary hearing. The record conclusively shows that appellant is not entitled to have the judgment or sentence vacated, set aside, or modified.

The order of the circuit court denying the motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. The motion for stay of execution is denied.

No petition for rehearing will be permitted in this case. It is so ordered.

ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., dissent.

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

BOYD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the order of the circuit court denying the motion of Daniel Morris Thomas for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the order of the trial court.

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes and was sentenced to death. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Thomas v. State, 374 So.2d 508 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 972, 100 S.Ct. 1666, 64 L.Ed.2d 249 (1980). He later filed a motion to vacate and a petition for habeas corpus. This Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief and denied the habeas petition. Thomas v. State, 421 So.2d 160 (Fla.1982). Thomas also sought a writ of habe-as corpus in United States District court. The court’s denial of relief was affirmed on appeal. Thomas v. Wainwright, 767 F.2d 738 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct 1241, 89 L.Ed.2d 349 (1986). Recently Thomas filed a second petition for habeas corpus with this Court. We denied the petition. Thomas v. Wainwright, 486 So.2d 574 (Fla.1986).

All of the claims in appellant’s current motion are matters that should have been raised at trial and on appeal, that could have been raised on appeal but were not, that were presented on appeal and decided adversely to appellant’s position, that were raised and rejected in one of appellant’s previous collateral challenges, or that were inexcusably omitted from his previous rule 3.850 motion. See Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1986). We therefore find [578]*578that the trial court was correct in denying the present motion without an evidentiary hearing. The record conclusively shows that appellant is not entitled to have the judgment or sentence vacated, set aside, or modified.

The order of the circuit court denying the motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. The motion for stay of execution is denied.

No petition for rehearing will be permitted in this case. It is so ordered.

ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 So. 2d 577, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 174, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-fla-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack