UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
TORIE G. RICHARDSON,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 1:25cv243-MW-HTC
RICKY D. DIXON, SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________/
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Torie G. Richardson, proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction in the Eighth Judicial Circuit in Alachua County Case Number 2018-CF-4263A. Doc. 1. Upon review of the petition and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 5), and after taking judicial notice of the relevant state court documents, the undersigned sua sponte recommends the petition be DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing as UNTIMELY. It was filed almost two (2) years after the statute of limitations expired. I. STANDARD FOR DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 4 Under Habeas Rule 4, “[t]he clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 4 requires district courts to dismiss
§ 2254 petitions without ordering a response “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 651 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Paez v. Inch, 141 S. Ct. 309 (2020).
This preliminary review calls on a district court to screen the petition prior to service and dismiss the petition, sua sponte, upon a determination that it contains no meritorious claim for relief. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, R. 4 advisory committee notes (“it is the duty of the court to screen out frivolous applications”).
The procedure serves to “eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer.” Id. A dismissal under Rule 4 may be appropriate both on the merits and upon a
finding that the petition is procedurally barred. Paez, 947 F.3d at 649. Specifically, a district court may sua sponte dismiss a § 2254 petition if it is clear the petition is untimely. Kilgore v. Att’y Gen. of Colo., 519 F.3d 1084, 1089 (10th Cir. 2008); Jackson v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 292 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2002) (per
curiam) (“even though the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the district court may review sua sponte the timeliness of the section 2254 petition”). II. THE PETITION IS UNTIMELY
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a § 2254 petition must be filed within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).1 However, the one-year period is tolled for “[t]he time
during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). As discussed below, Richardson’s federal petition is untimely because the one-year statute of limitations period began to run in 2022 and expired in October
2023. Based on the electronic docket for Alachua County Case Number 2018-CF- 4263A2 and the petition, Richardson was convicted in March 2021, after a jury trial,
of lewd and lascivious conduct on a victim less than 12 years of age and battery. Doc. 1 at 1-2. On August 8, 2025, he submitted the instant federal petition to prison mail officials for filing. Doc. 1. In the petition, Richardson raises three challenges to the judgment and conviction: (1) the trial court erred in allowing child
1 Although there are other “trigger” dates under the AEDPA, none of those apply here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). 2 A federal court may properly take judicial notice of state court dockets. Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 652 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Paez v. Inch, 141 S. Ct. 309 (2020); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Thus, the undersigned will take judicial notice of Richardson’s state court records, available at https://www.alachuaclerk.org/lindas and https://acis.flcourts.gov. hearsay statements through the mother; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve that issue for appeal; and (3) the prosecutor committed a Giglio / Brady violation by not providing the transcript of the mother’s deposition to defense until
the eve of trial. Id. The petition, however, is untimely. According to the petition and the state court dockets, Richardson filed a direct appeal of the judgment and conviction to the
First District Court of Appeal (“First DCA”) on August 31, 2021. See Doc. 1 at 3; First DCA number 2021-1022. On July 13, 2022, the First DCA issued a per curiam opinion affirming the judgment without written opinion. See id. Richardson admits he did not file a petition for rehearing, seek review with the Florida Supreme Court,
or seek certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Doc. 1 at 3-4. Therefore, Richardson’s conviction became final ninety (90) days later, on October 11, 2022. See Chamblee v. Florida, 905 F.3d 1192, 1198 (11th Cir. 2018) (“judgment
was final for purposes of triggering the AEDPA’s limitations period … when the 90- day window for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking direct review of the First District Court of Appeal’s decision affirming his convictions and sentence expired”).
The AEDPA one-year limit began running the next day and expired on October 12, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Richardson states in the petition that he filed a Florida Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion on December 22, 2022,
that was denied on December 28, 2022. Doc. 1 at 4-5. Richardson is incorrect about those dates. A review of the state court dockets show that Richardson did not file any post-conviction motions between October 11, 2022, and October 12, 2023. The dockets do not show that Richardson filed any motion on December 22, 2022.3
Instead, according to the state court dockets, the first and only post-conviction motion Richardson filed was docketed on December 22, 2023,4 more than two months after the one-year statute of limitations period had expired, and was denied
on December 28, 2023. See Exhibit A, electronic docket sheet for Case No. 2018 CF 4263.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
TORIE G. RICHARDSON,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 1:25cv243-MW-HTC
RICKY D. DIXON, SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________/
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Torie G. Richardson, proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction in the Eighth Judicial Circuit in Alachua County Case Number 2018-CF-4263A. Doc. 1. Upon review of the petition and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 5), and after taking judicial notice of the relevant state court documents, the undersigned sua sponte recommends the petition be DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing as UNTIMELY. It was filed almost two (2) years after the statute of limitations expired. I. STANDARD FOR DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 4 Under Habeas Rule 4, “[t]he clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 4 requires district courts to dismiss
§ 2254 petitions without ordering a response “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 651 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Paez v. Inch, 141 S. Ct. 309 (2020).
This preliminary review calls on a district court to screen the petition prior to service and dismiss the petition, sua sponte, upon a determination that it contains no meritorious claim for relief. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, R. 4 advisory committee notes (“it is the duty of the court to screen out frivolous applications”).
The procedure serves to “eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer.” Id. A dismissal under Rule 4 may be appropriate both on the merits and upon a
finding that the petition is procedurally barred. Paez, 947 F.3d at 649. Specifically, a district court may sua sponte dismiss a § 2254 petition if it is clear the petition is untimely. Kilgore v. Att’y Gen. of Colo., 519 F.3d 1084, 1089 (10th Cir. 2008); Jackson v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 292 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2002) (per
curiam) (“even though the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the district court may review sua sponte the timeliness of the section 2254 petition”). II. THE PETITION IS UNTIMELY
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a § 2254 petition must be filed within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).1 However, the one-year period is tolled for “[t]he time
during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). As discussed below, Richardson’s federal petition is untimely because the one-year statute of limitations period began to run in 2022 and expired in October
2023. Based on the electronic docket for Alachua County Case Number 2018-CF- 4263A2 and the petition, Richardson was convicted in March 2021, after a jury trial,
of lewd and lascivious conduct on a victim less than 12 years of age and battery. Doc. 1 at 1-2. On August 8, 2025, he submitted the instant federal petition to prison mail officials for filing. Doc. 1. In the petition, Richardson raises three challenges to the judgment and conviction: (1) the trial court erred in allowing child
1 Although there are other “trigger” dates under the AEDPA, none of those apply here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). 2 A federal court may properly take judicial notice of state court dockets. Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 652 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Paez v. Inch, 141 S. Ct. 309 (2020); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Thus, the undersigned will take judicial notice of Richardson’s state court records, available at https://www.alachuaclerk.org/lindas and https://acis.flcourts.gov. hearsay statements through the mother; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve that issue for appeal; and (3) the prosecutor committed a Giglio / Brady violation by not providing the transcript of the mother’s deposition to defense until
the eve of trial. Id. The petition, however, is untimely. According to the petition and the state court dockets, Richardson filed a direct appeal of the judgment and conviction to the
First District Court of Appeal (“First DCA”) on August 31, 2021. See Doc. 1 at 3; First DCA number 2021-1022. On July 13, 2022, the First DCA issued a per curiam opinion affirming the judgment without written opinion. See id. Richardson admits he did not file a petition for rehearing, seek review with the Florida Supreme Court,
or seek certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Doc. 1 at 3-4. Therefore, Richardson’s conviction became final ninety (90) days later, on October 11, 2022. See Chamblee v. Florida, 905 F.3d 1192, 1198 (11th Cir. 2018) (“judgment
was final for purposes of triggering the AEDPA’s limitations period … when the 90- day window for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking direct review of the First District Court of Appeal’s decision affirming his convictions and sentence expired”).
The AEDPA one-year limit began running the next day and expired on October 12, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Richardson states in the petition that he filed a Florida Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion on December 22, 2022,
that was denied on December 28, 2022. Doc. 1 at 4-5. Richardson is incorrect about those dates. A review of the state court dockets show that Richardson did not file any post-conviction motions between October 11, 2022, and October 12, 2023. The dockets do not show that Richardson filed any motion on December 22, 2022.3
Instead, according to the state court dockets, the first and only post-conviction motion Richardson filed was docketed on December 22, 2023,4 more than two months after the one-year statute of limitations period had expired, and was denied
on December 28, 2023. See Exhibit A, electronic docket sheet for Case No. 2018 CF 4263. Because that motion was not filed until after the limitations period expired, it did not toll the limitations period. See e.g., Sibley v. Culliver, 377 F.3d 1196, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004) (“A state court filing after the federal habeas filing deadline does
not revive it.”); see also Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001) (where a state court application for post-conviction relief is filed after the one-year statute of limitations has expired, it does not toll the statute of limitations because
no time remains to be tolled). Because the one-year AEDPA deadline in this case expired in October 2023, and the instant federal petition was not filed until August 8, 2025, the petition is untimely.
3 The only event that took place in 2022 was the issuance of the mandate by the First DCA on August 1, 2022, in Richardson’s direct appeal affirming the judgment and conviction. 4 A copy of the 3.850 motion contains a date stamp indicating that it was “Provided to Suwannee Correctional Institution on December 18, 2023, for mailing.” See Exhibit B. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the petition be dismissed sua sponte. A court does not err by sua sponte dismissing a § 2254
petition if it gives the petitioner notice of its decision and an opportunity to be heard in opposition. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that the district court did not err by sua sponte dismissing plainly untimely
§ 2254 petition where the court provided the petitioner with “adequate notice and an opportunity to respond”) (quotation marks omitted). This Report and Recommendation serves that function. See Paez, 947 F.3d at 649. Additionally, the undersigned will direct the clerk to provide the Secretary and the Attorney General’s
office a copy of the petition and this Report and Recommendation so that the Secretary will also have an opportunity to inform the Court if he intends to waive the timeliness defense. See id.
The undersigned also finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, this Court must consider “whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” Schriro v.
Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). Here, because no factual issues are involved in finding Petitioner’s petition is time-barred, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides: “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” If a certificate is
issued, “the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 11(a). A timely notice of appeal must still be filed, even if the court issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 11(b).
After review of the record, the undersigned finds no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (explaining how to satisfy this showing) (citation
omitted). Therefore, it is also recommended that the district court deny a certificate of appealability in its final order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The clerk shall serve a copy of the petition and this Order and Report
and Recommendation to the Respondent Ricky Dixon by providing a copy of same to the Secretary and to the Attorney General. Despite such service of the petition, the Respondent may, but does not have to, file an answer, motion, or other response. Additionally, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 1. That the petition be DISMISSED under Habeas Rule 4 as untimely. 2. That a certificate of appealability be DENIED.
3. That the clerk be directed to close the file. At Pensacola, Florida, this 2nd day of October, 2025. /s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636. " " J.K. "Jess" Irby, Esq.
Clerk of Circuit Court
□ “titty, paunnenneeny)
oe ’ i Ltt a
General Index Search « Search Results « Search Form « LINDAS Menu e Summary Parties e Events e Dockets e Charges e Alerts e Bond e Summons e Ticklers e Costs Docket List 01 2018 CF 004263 A - FELONY Closed - F3 (SUDGE COLAW) STATE OF FLORIDA -VS- RICHARDSON, TORIE GERMAYLLASHEA 190 records found Displaying records 1-50 Result Page: [1] 234 » . Amount # of File Date Docket Text Amount Images Due Pages 12/28/2023 XXXX CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF POST CONVICTION 12/28/2023 IEF ORDER Q 1 ORDER DENYING MOTION F/POST CONVICTION 12/28/2023 per //COLAW Q 88
12/26/2023 COURT ADVISED BY EMAIL OF MOTION FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF 12/22/2023 MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF Q 21 OBTS POST-COURT ENTRY Count: 1, 2, 3 12/22/2023 POST SENTENCE PHASE Date Reopened: 12/22/2023 Reason Reopened: Motion for Post Conviction Relief 07/18/2023 MEMO IN RESPONSE TO PRISONER REQUEST Q 1 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST UNDER FREEDOM OF 07/14/2023 INFORMATION ACT a 3 08/01/2022 MANDATE-AFFIRMED #21-1022 Q 3 10/01/2021 CASE (LIEN) FORWARDED TO COLLECTION 10/01/2021 COLLECTIONS RECORD STAGED WITH LIEN AMOUNT OF $1174.00 LETTER FORWARDING RECORD ON APPEAL, AND 05/26/2021 EFILING CONFIRMATION a 2 05/04/2021 03/29-03/30/2021- JURY SELECTION AND TRIAL JUDGE COLAW EFILING CONFIRMATION FOR ORDER OF 04/19/2021 INSOLVENCY 04/16/2021 MONETARY OBLIGATIONS AUDITED//hap LETTER FROM FIRST DCA ACKNOWLEDGING 04/07/2021 RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL #21-1022 a □ NOTICE OF APPEAL TRANSMITTAL FORM AND 04/07/2021 EFILING CONFIRMATION a 3 OBTS POST-COURT ENTRY 04/06/2021 Count: 1. 2. 3 POST SENTENCE PHASE Notice of Appeal Date: 04/06/2021 04/06/2021 ASSESSMENT - $100.00 CF APPEAL CIRCUIT FILING $100.00 $0.00 04/06/2021 NOTICE OF APPEAL - CRIMINAL Q 1 04/06/2021 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR APPEAL Q 1 04/06/2021 STATEMENT OF JUDICIAL ACTS TO BE REVIEWED Q 1 04/06/2021 MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS 04/06/2021 CERTIFIED COPY OF CIVIL JUDGMENT Q 1 04/06/2021 CIVIL JUDGMENT ENTERED Q 1 04/06/2021 ORDER ON MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTION Q 2 ORDER OF INDIGENCY AND APPOINTING THE 04/06/2021 PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR APPEAL a 2 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMMITMENT 5. ET QA 3 04/02/2021 RESTITUTION ORDER - NOT APPLICABLE// COLAW 04/02/2021 CASE AUDITED FOR CIVIL LIEN PURPOSES - $1,174.00 LIEN SENT TO JUDGE FOR SIGNATURE//HAP
03/30/2021 EVIDENCE CONTROL FORM Q 3 03/30/2021 XXXX 03/30/2021 OIEN BATCH RECORD 03/30/2021 ASSESSMENT - CF ATTORNEY FEES $100.00 $100.00 ASSESSMENT - CF STATE ATTY COST OF 03/30/2021 PROSECUTION $100.00 $100.00 03/30/2021 ASSESSMENT - $151.00 RAPE CRISIS TRUST FUND $151.00 $151.00 03/30/2021 ASSESSMENT - $201 CF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUND — $201.00 $201.00 03/30/2021 ASSESSMENT - $151.00 CF CRIME AGAINST MINORS — $151.00 $151.00 ASSESSMENT - $2 CF LCL LW ENFORCEMENT 03/30/2021 Charge #1: LEWD LASCV BEHAVIOR: MOLEST VIC $2.00 $2.00 LESS 12YOA OFFENDE 03/30/2021 ASSESSMENT - $419 CF BASE COSTS $419.00 $419.00 03/30/2021 ORDER ESTABLISHING MONETARY SUMS /@ Q 2 03/30/2021 FELONY GUILTY - JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE Q 6 OBTS COURT ENTRY Count: 3 Charge Status: Same Final Plea: Not Guilty 03/30/2021 Court Action: Guilty Adjudication 03/30/2021 Disp. Judge: COLAW, JAMES M Court Action: Jury Trial Date Imposed: 03/30/2021 03/30/2021 Effective Date/Time: 03/30/2021 Type: State Prison Facility Time YYY: 005 MM: 00 DD: 00 Credit Time Served DDDD: 0302 Defr Sentence: No Costs: 1,174.00 Disp. Date: 03/30/2021 Pty Chrg Dsp: Adjudicated Guilty/Delinquent in Juvenile Court 03/30/2021 PARTY CHARGE DISPOSITION ENTRY Chg No: 1 Citation #: Degree of Offense: Life - Felony Date of Offense Begin: 11/01/2018 End: Final Plea: Not Guilty 03/30/2021 Court Action: Guilty Adjudication 03/30/2021 Disp. Jdg: COLAW, JAMES M Division Nbr.: Jurisdiction Retained: Trial Type: Jury Trial Date Imposed: 03/30/2021 Effective: 03/30/2021 Confinement Period: Life Confinement Defr. Sentence: No Fines/Costs: Yes Fines: Costs: 1,174.00 Court Charge Status: Same Court Action Code: 800.04(5)(B) Description: LEWD LASCV BEHAVIOR: MOLEST VIC LESS 12YOA OFFENDE
Degree of Offense: Life - Felony Offense Activity: Not Applicable Gen Off Character: Principal Drug Type: Not Applicable Miscellaneous Sentencing Option: Determined to be a Sexual Predator Pty Chg Disp: 03/30/2021 Adjudicated Guilty/Delinquent in Juvenile Court Pty Chg Disp: 05/28/2019 Filed License Surrendered: No OBTS COURT ENTRY Count: | Charge Status: Same Final Plea: Not Guilty 03/30/2021 Court Action: Guilty Adjudication 03/30/2021 Disp. Judge: COLAW, JAMES M Court Action: Jury Trial Date Imposed: 03/30/2021 03/30/2021 Effective Date/Time: 03/30/2021 Type: State Prison Facility Period: Life Confinement Defr Sentence: No Costs: 1,174.00 Disp. Date: 03/30/2021 Pty Chrg Dsp: Adjudicated Guilty/Delinquent in Juvenile Court OBTS COURT ENTRY Count: 2 Charge Status: Reduced Offense Activity: Not Applicable Gen. Off. Char: Not Applicable Drug Type: Not Applicable Action Code: 784.03(1)(A)(1) BATTERY: TOUCH OR STRIKE Final Plea: Not Guilty 03/30/2021 Court Action: Guilty Adjudication 03/30/2021 Degree of Offense: First Degree Misdemeanor 03/30/2021 Disp. Judge: COLAW, JAMES M Court Action: Jury Trial Date Imposed: 03/30/2021 Effective Date/Time: 03/30/2021 Type: County Jail Time YYY: 000 MM: 11 DD: 29 Credit Time Served DDDD: 0364 Defr Sentence: No Costs: 1,174.00 Disp. Date: 03/30/2021 Pty Chrg Dsp: Adjudicated Guilty/Delinquent in Juvenile Court 03/30/2021 VERDICT QA 2
03/30/2021 JUROR CONCERN 03/30/2021 JURY INSTRUCTIONS Q 1] 03/30/2021 SCORE SHEET Q 3 Result Page: [1] 234 » Username: ru_mdupee Log Out User Profile Clerk's Home Page Public Records Online
pe
iD, Aun co®
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, . IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
TORIE GERMAYLLASHEA RICHARDSON, Defendant, V. □□ Case No.: 01-2018-CF-004263-A | Proviaed to Suwannee STATE OF FLORIDA, Correctional Institution on: Plaintiff. / DEC 18 2023 □ I Tp for mailing, ehh
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF 3.850
COMES NOW, Torie G. Richardson, Defendant, pro se, under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 seeking post-conviction relief and would show this Honorable Court to whit: oR
Teme owe
Torie G. Richardson, DC# G04425 . Suwannee Cl / Annex eT 5964 U.S. Hwy 90 uy jive . Live Oak, Florida 32060
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
4. GROUND ONE: Abuse of □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 5. GROUND TWO: Ineffective Counsel for failure to preserve under section
(A) Trial Counsel failed to impeach Sgt. Michael Coopers hearsay testimony of | Kyrrelle Wards testimony as personal knowledge told to him. (B) Trial Counsel failed to object to Kyrrelle Wards. testimony or impeach for contradictory unsubstantiated statements denied by alleged victim. (C) Trial Counsel failed to impeach hearsay witness testimony as unsubstantiated second hand statements. (D) Trial Counsel was ineffective for not impeaching all cumulated contradicting statements made in direct contradiction with Kyonna the alleged victims pretrial, deposition, and trial statements. 6. GROUND THREE: Did a Giglio or Brady violation occur where Defendant was denied access to Kyrrelle Wards deposition pre-trial to ascertain defense strategy showing contradictory □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ DD
Be Bo a5 3 OT aR AL
so,