Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Braverman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 10, 1981No. Nos. 79-888, 80-715Published

1ConcurrenceSchwartz, Judge

(specially concurring).

I concur in the court’s opinion and judgment of reversal. I would add only that, in my view, the result is not contrary to the rule that issues “actually raised”1 and considered in prior proceedings may not again be presented in a motion under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. Whitney v. State, 184 So.2d 207, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 192 So.2d 490 (Fla.1966); see, Jones v. Wainwright, 252 So.2d 570 (Fla.1971); Kendrick v. State, 353 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (precluding 3.850 claim that plea was involuntary when issue had been determined in previous appeal). This…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sanders v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Whitney v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  3. State v. BravermanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
  4. Kendrick v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API