RICHARDSON FRANCOIS V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2002 RICHARDSON FRANCOIS, ** Appellant, ** CASE NO. 3D02-2494 ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 96-7212 vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** ** Opinion filed October 23, 2002. An Appeal under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Scott J. Silverman, Judge. Richardson Francois, in proper person. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee. Before JORGENSON, COPE, and GODERICH, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ., concur. Richardson Francois v. State Case No. 3D02-2494 COPE, J. (concurring). I do not agree with the trial court s ruling that the motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was impermissibly successive. Defendant-appellant Francois adequately explained that the instant motion could not have been filed until he obtained the trial transcript, whereas the earlier 3.850 motion raised exclusively a sentencing issue under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000). On the merits, however, I concur in affirming the order denying Rule 3.850 relief. After taking judicial notice of the briefs in the direct appeal, it is clear that the claims do not satisfy the standard for Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). While the defendant claims that alibi witnesses, whom he has identified, would exculpate him, the defendant has not stated what the substance of their testimony would be, and how that would apply to the facts of his case. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.