STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. JAMES T. RUSSELL, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE SUSAN SCHAEFFER, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court granted the State's motion for prohibition to prevent Judge Schaeffer from issuing a stay of execution for John Michael, holding that a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution absent a pending post-conviction relief motion or sufficient factual allegations supporting relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The circuit court had no jurisdiction to entertain Michael's application for stay because he neither filed a 3.850 motion nor provided facts that would allow the court to consider his application as a colorable motion under that rule. The State's motion for prohibition was granted without prejudice to Michael's right to file a motion for post-conviction relief.
[1] A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution when no claim for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 has been filed and the application for stay does…
[2] A circuit court's all writs power does not extend to granting a stay of execution absent a pending claim for post-conviction relief or an application for stay that can be…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Michael, on the other hand, has not filed a 3.850 motion, and his application for stay is devoid of any facts which would allow a court to consider that document as a color-able motion under rule 3.850.”
Establishes the critical distinction between Michael's case and Agan/Waterhouse, showing lack of jurisdictional basis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Michael was under a current death warrant and sought a stay of execution from the circuit court. Michael did not file a motion for collateral rel…
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 Collateral Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Order on Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition
McDONALD, Justice.
The state has petitioned for a writ prohibiting Judge Schaeffer from issuing a stay sought by John Michael, who is under a current death warrant. Michael has sought a stay of execution from Judge Schaeffer, claiming that the circuit court can grant a stay under its all writs power even though no claim for post-conviction relief is pending in that court. In his application for stay Michael depends on our recent denials of prohibition regarding James Agan, State v. Green, 466 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985), and Robert Waterhouse, State v. Beach, 466 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985). Agan, however, had filed a motion for collateral relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Proce dure 3.850 along with his application for stay, while Waterhouse’s application for stay contained enough facts to show, on its face, that he might be entitled to relief under rule 3.850 and that his application for stay could be treated as a 3.850 motion subject to amendment. Their trial courts, therefore, had a valid basis for exercising jurisdiction. See Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.850. Michael, on the other hand, has not filed a 3.850 motion, and his application for stay is devoid of any facts which would allow a court to consider that document as a color-able motion under rule 3.850. The circuit court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain his application for a stay. See § 922.06, Fla.Stat. (1983). We therefore grant the state’s motion for suggestion of prohibition without prejudice to the filing of a motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spalding v. Dugger, 526 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1988)…appeal or habeas corpus pending before this Court and there is no appeal pending except in the Suarez matter, which is scheduled to be heard by this Court on June 13, 1988. See § 922.06, Fla.Stat. (1987); see also State ex rel. Russell v. Schaeffer, 467 So. 2d 698 (Fla.1985). With regard to the five death-sentenced petitioners in this cause, only one remains subject to a possible trial court hearing before July 1, 1988. Stays have already been granted by the trial courts for Norman Parker, Dan Routly, and Dan…
-
Bundy v. State, 490 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1986)…filed, we affirm the circuit court’s order denying the application for stay of execution. Our order is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court. See State ex rel. Russell v. Schaeffer, 467 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1985). It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.…1 / 2
-
Amendments TO Fla. Rule OF Crim. Procedure 3.851(h), 828 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2002)…tion where the application for stay is filed with a motion for postconviction relief or where the application for stay itself shows grounds under which the defendant might be entitled to postconviction relief. See State ex rel. Russell v. Schaeffer, 467 So. 2d 698 (Fla.1985); see also art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const. Nevertheless, while we do not agree with the Attorney General’s suggestion that authority to grant stays of execution should be limited to this Court, we do find that the language regarding stays con…