VINCENT C. WILLIAMS
v.
MILTON HICKS, WARDEN OF CROSS CITY CORR. INST.
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.
A non-sentencing trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition asserting claims cognizable under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850.
[1] Habeas corpus is not an available remedy in Florida to obtain collateral postconviction relief cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which must be pu…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.”
Trial court's basis for dismissal, citing Baker v. State.
Williams filed a habeas corpus petition in a trial court that was not his sentencing court, raising claims ostensibly cognizable under Rules 3.800 and…
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 Jurisdiction Of Sentencing Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315, we summarily affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. The trial court was not the sentencing court, so it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition, which asserted claims ostensibly cognizable under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004) (“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.”); see also id. at 1239 (explaining that rule 3.850 “essentially transferred consideration of these traditional habeas claims from the court having territorial jurisdiction over the prison where the prisoner is detained to the jurisdiction of the sentencing court”); cf. Epps v. McNeil, 37 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition for want of jurisdiction because it sought relief provided by rules 3.800 and 3.850 but was not filed in the sentencing court); Zuluaga v. Dep’t of Corr., 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (same). SUMMARILY AFFIRMED. B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heldrado Zuluaga v. State, 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Epps v. McNEIL, 37 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)