Court Opinion

ID: 9955132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 18:03:42.993118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.511290
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2022-3617
                 _____________________________

BERNARD DAVIS,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
Joshua M. Hawkes, Judge.

                         March 27, 2024

WINOKUR, J.

     Bernard Davis was convicted of first-degree murder and
attempted armed robbery with a firearm. These convictions were
affirmed on appeal in 2015 and Davis’ petition to the United States
Supreme Court was denied in 2016. In 2017, Davis, through
counsel, filed a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the
motion and the denial was affirmed in 2018. In 2019, Davis filed a
motion, through the same counsel that filed the 3.800(a) motion,
alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Florida Rule
of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court denied the 3.850 motion as
untimely in January 2020, and this denial was affirmed on appeal.
     In September 2022, Davis filed a second rule 3.850 motion,
this time represented by different counsel. In this second rule
3.850 motion, Davis requested the court to consider the merits of
the first rule 3.850 motion, because the untimeliness of the earlier
motion was due to the misadvice of former counsel, who had
erroneously advised Davis that the filing of the rule 3.800(a)
motion would toll the time to file a motion under rule 3.850. The
motion included an affidavit of former counsel in which he
admitted the misadvice. The trial court denied the motion,
rejecting Davis’ claim that the information about the misadvice
constituted newly discovered information. This appeal follows.

     A defendant may file a rule 3.850 motion more than two years
after the judgment and sentence become final when “the facts on
which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the
movant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the
exercise of due diligence, and the claim is made within 2 years of
the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the
exercise of due diligence.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1). The trial
court correctly ruled that Davis could have discovered that his
counsel misadvised him about the timeliness of his first 3.850
motion when the court denied the motion as untimely in January
2020, more than two years prior to filing the second rule 3.850
motion. We therefore affirm the order.

      We note that this situation, where collateral counsel’s
ineffectiveness prevented state collateral review of claims of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is addressed in the context
of a federal habeas corpus proceeding in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S.
1 (2012). However, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that
“Martinez applies only to federal habeas proceedings.” Banks v.
State, 150 So. 3d 797, 800 (Fla. 2014).

    AFFIRMED.

LEWIS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

                                 2
               _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Ryan Edward McFarland of Kent & McFarland, Jacksonville, for
Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Adam B. Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

                             3