Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

547 So. 2d 109

547 So.2d 109

14 Fla.L.Weekly 247

Marek v. Dugger

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided May 11, 1989

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1989-05-11

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · 492 So. 2d 1055 - Marek v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-05-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2016

17 state decisions

1101989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1John Richard Marek appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to vacate judgment and sentence of death. He also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We granted Marek a stay of execution from his first death warrant and ordered briefs on the issues. Marek v. Dugger, Nos. 73,175 & 73,278 (Fla. Nov. 8, 1988). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We now affirm the lower court’s denial of Marek’s motion and deny his petition for habeas corpus relief.

¶2This is Marek’s first postconviction relief proceeding. We affirmed Marek’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Marek v. State, 492 So.2d 1055 (Fla.1986). The detailed facts surrounding the crime are set forth in that opinion.

¶3Marek raised twenty-two points in his rule 3.850 petition, each of which was individually ruled upon by the trial court following a full evidentiary hearing. As to Marek’s claim of counsel’s ineffectiveness in his rule 3.850 petition, we find the dictates of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), were properly applied. The remaining claims were either raised or could have been raised previously and, thus, were properly denied on the basis of procedural default. We also find no basis for habeas corpus relief.

¶4Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Marek’s rule 3.850 motion and deny his petition for habeas corpus relief.

¶5It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
/547/so2d/109 · .json · Public domain