Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

644 So. 2d 983

644 So.2d 983

19 Fla.L.WeeklySupp. 441

Melendez v. Singletary

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 8, 1994

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1994-09-08

Relies on Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc. · Spanolia v. Lee's Crane Service, Inc. · 498 So. 2d 1258 - Melendez v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-09-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 843 So. 2d 842 - Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. (2003), 718 So. 2d 746 - Melendez v. State (1998)

1 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

310199420002010decided

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 →

SHAW, Justice.

¶1Juan Roberto Melendez petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.

¶2Melendez was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery for which he received a death sentence and a life sentence respectively. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Melendez v. State, 498 So.2d 1258 (Fla.1986). We subsequently denied Melendez’s appeal of the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 349, 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993). Melendez then filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus.

¶3Melendez claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective for a number of reasons.1 We find his claim to be without merit. We deny the petition.

¶4It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, KOGAN, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.

¶5. Melendez claims that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel on the following issues: A) Melendez was prevented from cross-examining witnesses and prevented from introducing evidence necessary to prove his innocence; B) there is insufficient evidence to support the murder conviction; C) the death sentence is arbitrary in light of the fact that an alleged co-perpetrator was never charged; D) Melendez did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to present evidence in mitigation; E) the shifting of the burden of proof in the jury instructions at sentencing deprived Mr. Melendez of his rights; F) the death sentence rests upon an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance.

/644/so2d/983 · .json · Public domain