JOSE CUPON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
Jose Cupón petitions for habeas corpus relief, challenging inconsistent outcomes in his escape conviction and that of his co-defendant Villegas Alen. The court denies the petition, holding that habeas corpus relief is limited to circumstances where appellate courts reach inconsistent results on identical legal issues arising from the same facts, and here the legal issues presented were not identical.
Cupón is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. The habeas remedy under Raulerson is properly limited to circumstances where an appellate court reaches inconsistent results in criminal cases arising from the same set of facts and presenting the same legal issues. Although the appeals arose from the same facts, the legal issues presented were not identical, as Cupón's appeal raised a different legal theory regarding private operation of the jail facility.
[1] A "prisoner" under Florida's escape statute must be "under arrest" and in lawful custody, meaning held to answer for a crime.
[2] An arrest for deportation proceedings under federal immigration law is civil in nature and does not satisfy the "under arrest" requirement for a criminal escape charge un…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 extraordinary habeas corpus remedy set forth in Raulerson is properly limited to those circumstances where the appellate court has reached inconsistent results in criminal cases arising from the same set of facts and presenting the same issues of law.”
Establishes the stringent test for habeas corpus relief based on inconsistent appellate decisions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCupón and co-defendant Villegas Alen were tried by jury and convicted of escape and grand theft of an automobile. Both were being held at a Bay County…
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 Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jose Cupón petitions for a writ of habe-as corpus, complaining that this court reached conflicting results in his direct appeal and that of his co-defendant. We have jurisdiction, Raulerson v. State, 724 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), but find that Cupón is not entitled to relief under the unique circumstances presented here.
Cupón and co-defendant Villegas Alen were tried by a jury and convicted of escape and grand theft of an automobile.
This court reversed Villegas Alen’s escape conviction, concluding that the defendant, who was a civil detainee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time of the incident, was not a “prisoner” subject to punishment under section 944.40, Florida Statutes. Villegas-Alen v. State, 25 Fla.
L. Weekly D2636, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 1675864 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov.9, 2000), modified on rehearing (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Cupon’s direct appeal, however, resulted in an affirmance. Cupon v. State, 751 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The state argues that the petition should be denied because this court affirmed the conviction in Cupon’s direct appeal on the theory that this issue was not properly preserved for appeal. A recent decision of this court has decided this question to the contrary. Cupon v. State, 783 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Our examination of this court’s file in Cupon’s direct appeal reveals, however, that this precise issue was not argued as grounds for reversal. Instead, Cupon’s appellate counsel argued that the escape conviction should be reversed because the Bay County jail annex, where Cupón and Villegas Alen were being held, was operated by a private corporation under contract with the county.
The extraordinary habeas corpus remedy set forth in Raulerson is properly limited to those circumstances where the appellate court has reached inconsistent results in criminal cases arising from the same set of facts and presenting the same issues of law. Sanders v. State, 689 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Tapia v. State, 676 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Romero v. State, 637 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). While the appeals of Cupon and Villegas Alen had the former element, the legal issues presented for the court’s consideration were not identical. We therefore conclude that petitioner has not shown entitlement to the relief he seeks.
PETITION DENIED.
BARFIELD, C.J., KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cupon v. State, 833 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…tead “argued that the escape conviction should be reversed because the Bay County Jail annex, where Cupon and Villegas-Alen were being held, was operated by a private corporation under contract with the county.” Cupon v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 789 So. 2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(Cupon III). Thus, we held that the results in the cases of Cupón and Villegas-Alen were not in conflict, because the legal issues presented by each were not identical. Id. Cupón has again petitioned for a writ of habeas co…
Authorities Cited
- Trinidus Miller v. State, 724 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Romero v. State, 637 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Cupon v. State, 783 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Dorsey A. Sanders, III v. State, 689 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- White v. State, 676 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Tapia v. State, 676 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)