ANGEL BARREIROS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
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 appellate court reversed the denial of a habeas corpus petition, finding that the trial court erred in concluding the issues raised were previously litigated. The case was remanded for the trial court to address the merits of the petition.
Yes, the trial court erred in finding that the issues raised in the defendant's October 30, 2017 petition for writ of habeas corpus were the same as those raised in a prior motion. Therefore, the denial of the petition was improper.
[1] A trial court errs when it denies a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on the erroneous belief that the issues raised have already been litigated in a prior motion.
[2] A petition for writ of habeas corpus raises distinct legal issues from a motion to correct an illegal sentence, even if both are filed by the same defendant.
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“Defendant’s petition for habeas corpus was previously filed in this court as a motion to correct illegal sentences, filed 4/17/17 and denied.”
The trial court's stated reason for denying the defendant's habeas corpus petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant mailed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied it, stating the issues were previously raised in a motion to correct…
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 Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDON, J.
Angel Barreiros (“defendant”) appeals from the denial of his petition for writ
of habeas corpus and the denial of his motion for rehearing. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address the issues raised in the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
On October 30, 2017, the defendant mailed a petition for writ of habeas corpus raising three arguments, which petition was docketed on November 2, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying the petition, stating as follows: “Defendant’s petition for habeas corpus was previously filed in this court as a motion to correct illegal sentences, filed 4/17/17 and denied.” The order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus was furnished to the defendant by mail on December 18, 2017. On January 2, 2018, the defendant submitted for mailing a motion for rehearing of the order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that, contrary to the trial court’s determination, the issues raised in the October 30, 2017 petition for writ of habeas corpus were not previously raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence filed on April 17, 2017. The trial court denied the motion for rehearing, and the defendant’s appeal followed.
The Miami-Dade County lower tribunal docket does not reflect that a motion to correct illegal sentence was filed on April 17, 2017. However, the Miami-Dade County docket reflects that the defendant filed a 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence in Miami-Dade County on April 18, 2017, which was dated April 10, 2017. In addition, on April 17, 2017, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
in Charlotte County, which was later transferred to Miami-Dade County on April 24, 2017. Both the petition for writ of habeas corpus originally filed in Charlotte County and the motion to correct illegal sentence filed in Miami-Dade County on April 18, 2017, raised the same three issues.
As pertinent to the instant appeal, the three issues raised in either the April 17, 2017 petition for writ of habeas corpus originally filed in Charlotte County or the motion to correct illegal sentence filed in Miami-Dade County on April 18, 2017, are not the same three issues raised in the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus dated October 30, 2017 (docketed November 2, 2017). Thus, the defendant correctly argues that the trial court erred by finding that the issues raised in his October 30, 2017 petition for writ of habeas corpus are the same issues raised in an April 17, 2017 motion to correct illegal sentence. Accordingly, we reverse the orders under review and remand for the trial court to address the issues raised in the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus dated October 30, 2017 (docketed November 2, 2017). We take no position as to the arguments raised by the defendant in his October 30, 2017 petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Reversed and remanded.