WILLIAM T. MORRISON, JR., v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA WILLIAM T. MORRISON, JR., Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-749 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed September 12, 2013. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Michael G. Allen, Judge. William T. Morrison, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant, William Morrison, appeals the trial court s summary denial of his 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, in which he asserted ten grounds for relief. On appeal, he presents six issues with the trial court s summary denial of his ten grounds. We affirm Appellant s Issues 1 through 5 without further comment. Appellant s Issue 6 requests this Court order the trial court accept a supplement Appellant allegedly filed to his postconviction motion which asserted an additional, eleventh ground for relief. The trial court asserts, and the trial court s docket report confirms, it was never received. And, in his two requests to the trial court to hear his supplemental ground, Appellant never attached a copy of the alleged motion or any other material to show the trial court the supplement existed. In this Court, Appellant finally appears to have provided it by way of attachment to a motion to supplement the record on appeal; but, again, his supplement appears nowhere else. Without any evidence the trial court actually received the supplement in any way, though, we cannot find error in the trial court dismissing a request Appellant never provided it. Accordingly, we AFFIRM as to Issues 1 through 5. We AFFIRM Issue 6 without prejudice to Appellant actually putting the supplemental before the trial court. We make no suggestion as to the merits of the supplemental ground or whether the supplement is timely; these matters are for the trial court to resolve. VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR. 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.
