Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

488 So. 2d 530

488 So.2d 530

11 Fla.L.Weekly 227

Docket No. 68773.

Straight v. State

Ronald J. STRAIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided May 19, 1986.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1986-05-19

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1998

13 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“... matters that could have been remedied by objection at trial and argument on appeal may not be considered by means of a rule 3.850 motion.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 586 So. 2d 1311 - McGowan v. State

Relies on Brockett v. Spokane Arcades Inc · Straight v. State · 422 So. 2d 827 - Straight v. Wainwright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-05-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, Mark Evan Olive, Litigation Director and Michael A. Mello, Asst. Capital Collateral Representative, Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3BOYD, Chief Justice.

¶4Ronald Straight appeals the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

¶5Appellant's conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death were affirmed on appeal. Straight v. State,397 So.2d 903 (Fla.), cert. denied,454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981). Subsequently, appellant sought collateral relief by rule 3.850 motion and petition for habeas corpus. This Court affirmed the denial of the 3.850 motion and denied the habeas corpus petition. Straight v. Wainwright,422 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1982).

¶6The present appeal presents issues that are not cognizable in this proceeding. Because a rule 3.850 proceeding may not be used to provide a second appeal or to provide an alternative to the ordinary appeal of right, matters that could have been remedied by objection at trial and argument on appeal may not be considered by means of a rule 3.850 motion. Moreover, issues that have been resolved in a previous collateral proceeding are barred from consideration in a successive collateral proceeding. All of appellant's present arguments fall in one or the other of the foregoing two categories. Therefore they may not be considered now.

¶7The order denying the rule 3.850 motion is affirmed. The motion for a stay of execution is denied and the application for stay pending petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

¶8It is so ordered.

¶9OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

/488/so2d/530 · .json · Public domain