Court Opinion

ID: 9903255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:33:45.248735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:09.627353
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                     FIFTH DISTRICT

                                    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ERIC A. WOODRUM,

            Appellant,

v.                                           Case No. 5D23-1081
                                             LT Case No. 2014-CF-478

STATE OF FLORIDA,

         Appellee.
________________________________/

Decision filed April 28, 2023

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Putnam County,
James R. Clayton, Judge.

Eric A. Woodrum, Chipley, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

      AFFIRMED.

MAKAR and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
LAMBERT, C.J., concurs, with opinion.
LAMBERT, C.J., concurring.                          Case No. 5D23-1081
                                                    LT Case No. 2014-CF-478

      More than six years after his judgment and sentence for second-

degree murder following a no contest plea became final, Appellant filed a

“Second or Successive Motion for Postconviction Relief” under Florida Rule

of Criminal Procedure 3.850(h). Appellant did not allege in his motion that

his trial counsel was ineffective; instead, he contended that his co-

defendants’ changing testimonies evidenced that a fraud was being or had

been committed on the court by the time that he tendered his no contest

plea. Appellant asserted that such behavior justified the vacating of his

judgment and sentence at this late date.

      The postconviction court summarily denied the motion for being

“conclusory, incoherent, and without merit.” Appellant’s sole argument on

appeal is that this denial order must be reversed because the court’s failure

to attach any records to its order violates the mandatory requirements under

subsection (h)(2) of the rule.

      In its entirety, rule 3.850(h)(2) provides:

            A second or successive motion is an extraordinary
            pleading. Accordingly, a court may dismiss a second
            or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to
            allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior
            determination was on the merits or, if new and
            different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the
            failure of the defendant or the attorney to assert
                                        2
            those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse
            of the procedure or there was no good cause for the
            failure of the defendant or defendant’s counsel to
            have asserted those grounds in a prior motion.
            When a motion is dismissed under this subdivision,
            a copy of that portion of the files and records
            necessary to support the court’s ruling shall
            accompany the order denying the motion.

      Although not directly utilized by the court below, this subsection

provides trial judges with an expedited route and procedure to summarily

dismiss or deny many second or successive rule 3.850 motions without

having to substantively address the merits of the motion.            Here, the

postconviction court could have readily dismissed or denied Appellant’s

motion with a finding that no good cause exists why the new grounds raised

in this successive motion could not have been asserted in Appellant’s earlier

unsuccessful rule 3.850 motions, provided that the court then attached

record documents showing that these new grounds differed from those

alleged in an earlier motion.

      Nevertheless, I agree with the majority’s summary affirmance of the

lower court’s denial order. On its face, the motion was filed well past the two

year filing requirement of rule 3.850. Appellant alleged no grounds to fall

within one of the three exceptions under rule 3.850(b)(1)–(3) that allows for

the filing of the motion for postconviction relief more than two years after the

judgment and sentence became final. Additionally, rule 3.850(a)(1)–(6) sets
                                       3
forth the claims that may be asserted for postconviction relief from the

judgment, none of which was specifically raised in the motion.

                                     4