EARNEST JAMES FINLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Finley appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his robbery conviction on double jeopardy grounds, arguing he could not be convicted of robbery when it was the underlying felony for his first-degree murder conviction. The court affirmed the denial, finding the petition was filed in the wrong county and that habeas corpus was not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief.
The Circuit Court properly denied the habeas corpus petition for two independent reasons: (1) the petition was filed in the wrong county, as Florida law requires habeas petitions to be filed in the circuit court of the county where the prisoner is detained, and (2) habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 when post-conviction relief is an adequate remedy to test the legality of detention.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus must be filed in the circuit court of the county in which the prisoner is detained.
[2] Habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief when a motion for post-conviction relief is an adequate remedy.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An application for writ of habeas corpus shall not be entertained where the applicant has failed to first apply for post-conviction relief, provided a motion for post-conviction relief is adequate to test the legality of the detention.”
Establishes the requirement to exhaust post-conviction remedies before seeking habeas relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFinley was convicted of first-degree murder in 1978, with robbery serving as the underlying felony. He subsequently was also convicted and sentenced f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Double Jeopardy Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the petition was legally insufficient on its face. We affirm.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of ha-beas corpus in the Circuit Court which had imposed his judgment and sentence, alleging that the double jeopardy clause precluded him from being convicted and sentenced for robbery with a deadly weapon because robbery was the underlying felony upon which his 1978 first degree murder conviction was based. See, Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977); Pinder v. State, 375 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1979). Therefore, he sought to have his conviction and sentence for robbery vacated. The Circuit Court denied the petition on the grounds that it was legally insufficient on its face.
The Circuit Court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus for two reasons. First, the Circuit Court was without authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Wainwright v. Holley, 234 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Ruiter v. Wainwright, 249 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Section 79.09, Fla.Stat. (1979), requires that a petition for habeas corpus before a circuit court must be filed with the circuit court of the county in which the prisoner is detained. Since appellant was detained in Highlands County at the time of the filing of the petition below, the petition should have been filed in the Circuit Court for Highlands County rather than the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.
Additionally, the remedy of habe-as corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, Fla. R.Crim.P. An application for writ of habe-as corpus shall not be entertained where the applicant has failed to first apply for post-conviction relief, provided a motion for post-conviction relief is adequate to test the legality of the detention. Zungia v. State, 184 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. denied, 189 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 962, 87 S.Ct. 404, 17 L.Ed.2d 307 (1966); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Therefore, since the issue raised in appellant’s petition for habeas corpus may be raised by a motion for post-conviction relief, his failure to exhaust this remedy precludes habeas relief.
Accordingly, the appealed order is AFFIRMED.
SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…iminal Procedure); see also Brown v. Wainwright, 383 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In Broom, the court explained: Prior to the adoption of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 (now Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, hereinafter referred to as “Rule 3”), the proper procedure for collaterally attacking a judgme…
-
Collins v. State, 859 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…oceedings. Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650, 668 n. 13 (Fla.2000); Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1992); Green v. State, 727 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); King v. State, 695 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Leichtman; Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (“[T]he remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 Fla. R.Crim. P.”); see also Williams v. State, 840 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Carter v. State, 824 So. 2d 1043…
-
Ford v. Louie L. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1984)…petitioner raised'other challenges to the instructions given during the sentencing phase, but did not raise this issue. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to raise the issue here. See Johnson v. State, 185 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla.1966); Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Darden v. Wainwright, 236 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Furthermore, petitioner’s reliance on Rose v. State, 425 So. 2d 521 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1883, 76 L.Ed.2d 812 (1983), and Harich v. State, 437 S…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1977)
- State v. Pinder, 375 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1979)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Louie L. Wainwright v. Holley, 234 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Gemmel v. Buchkoe, 385 U.S. 962 (U.S. 1966)
- Wilson v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 962 (U.S. 1966)
- Zuniga v. State, 184 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Ruiter v. Louie L. Wainwright, 249 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Fla. Peach Corp. v. Barron, 249 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Berkley v. Abc Liquors, 189 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1966)
- Elliott v. State, 189 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1966)