Opinion ID: 2620359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Direct Appeal and Post-Conviction Motions

Text: Ivy appealed his convictions to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. In his appellate brief, Ivy argued that the state trial court erred in limiting his crossexamination of the victim and by refusing to allow him to question the victim about her “possible bias and motive to lie.” Ivy argued that, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 90.608, a trial court should allow a defendant to impeach the credibility of a state witness. He argued that, under Florida law, the impeachment evidence he sought to present during his trial was relevant and should not have been excluded. In his appellate brief, Ivy also asserted once that he had a “‘constitutional right to a full and fair cross-examination of his accuser’” and once that he had “the absolute right to conduct a full and fair cross-examination.” However, he cited 3 Case: 13-11740 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 4 of 16 only state cases for these propositions, and these state cases were not based on federal law. Ivy did not cite the U.S. Constitution or any federal statute or federal case in support of his argument. 1 In 2007, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Later that same year, in a Florida circuit court, Ivy filed a motion for “postconviction relief,” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He later amended his motion with additional ineffective-assistance claims and a challenge to the state trial court’s jurisdiction to conduct his original trial. In 2008, the Florida circuit court denied Ivy’s Rule 3.850 motion. Ivy appealed, and in October 2011, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the denial of his first Rule 3.850 motion. Ivy also filed a second Rule 3.850 motion, which the Florida circuit court dismissed for not meeting the requirements of successive motions. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the dismissal in February 2009 and denied a rehearing on that summary affirmance in March 2009.