TREMAINE BAILEM, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Tremaine Bailem petitioned for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus to compel the trial court to transport him to testify at an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction relief motion. The Florida appellate court denied both petitions, finding that mandamus was inappropriate because the trial court's decision involved discretion and Bailem had an adequate remedy through direct appeal, and that habeas corpus could not be used to relitigate issues that could have been raised on postconviction appeal.
Mandamus relief is not available because the trial court's decision whether to grant an evidentiary hearing involved discretion, which the court properly exercised by ruling on the motion without a hearing, and Bailem had an adequate remedy through direct appeal. Habeas corpus relief is also unavailable because Bailem could have raised these issues on postconviction appeal and cannot use habeas corpus to relitigate matters that could have been appealed.
[1] Mandamus relief is unavailable when the lower court has discretion in performing the requested action.
[2] A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief, an indisputable legal duty by the respondent, and the absence of any other ade…
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“To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy.”
States the three-part test for obtaining mandamus relief that Bailem failed to satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBailem was charged with criminal offenses in September 2006, adjudicated competent in November 2006, and pled guilty in December 2006, receiving 366 d…
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 Discretionary Action cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, J.
Tremaine Bailem (“Bailem”) petitions this Court for the issuance of either a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to grant Bailem’s request to transport him to Miami-Dade County and to allow him to testify at a requested evidentiary hearing. As mandamus and habeas corpus are not the appropriate avenues to obtain the relief requested, and the requested relief is now moot, we deny both petitions.
The record reflects that on September 15, 2006, Bailem was charged with committing several criminal offenses. On November 6, 2006, he was adjudicated competent to proceed, and on December 7, 2006, he pled to the charges and was sentenced to 366 days incarceration to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed in case numbers 02-421, 02-913, and 03-134.
On April 11, 2007, Bailem filed a motion for postconviction relief, and on May 29, 2007, he filed a motion for an order to transport him to Miami-Dade County for an evidentiary hearing. On May 31, 2007, the trial court entered an order summarily denying Bailem’s motion for postconviction relief. Bailem has not appealed this ruling. In March of 2008, Bailem filed the instant pro se amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and/or petition for writ of mandamus, requesting this Court to either order the trial court to rule on his May 29, 2007, motion for transport, or order the trial court to make arrangements to transport Bailem to Miami-Dade County and to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his rule 3.850 motion.
“To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy.” Jenkins v. State, 957 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); accord Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla.2002); Tucker v. Ruvin, 748 So. 2d 376, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Mandamus is cognizable where the lower court fails to perform a ministerial duty, not to force a discretionary action. See State v. S.C.W., 718 So. 2d 320, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Buckhalt v. McGhee, 632 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), which held that “[mjanda-mus does not lie when the official against whom a petition for mandamus is sought has any discretion in the performance of the act petitioner seeks to compel”).
Mandamus relief is not available to address Bailem’s claims because it was within the trial court’s discretion to grant Bailem an evidentiary hearing, the trial court exercised its discretion by ruling on Bailem’s motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing, and Bailem had an adequate remedy at law in that he could have sought review of the trial court’s actions and rulings by way of direct appeal. Moreover, as the trial court has ruled on Bailem’s 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, his motion to be transported to Miami-Dade County to address his 3.850 motion, is moot.
With regard to Bailem’s request for habeas corpus relief, we note that ha-beas corpus petitions cannot be used to litigate issues that were raised or could have been raised in a postconviction appeal. See McDonald v. State, 952 So. 2d 484, 498 (Fla.2006) (citing Knight v. State, 923 So. 2d 387, 395 (Fla.2005)). Because Bailem could have sought review by appealing the trial court’s denial of his rule 3.850 motion, he may not now attempt to litigate the issue by seeking habeas corpus review.
Petitions for writ of habeas corpus and/or mandamus denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Vill. OF KEY Biscayne & Miami-Dade Cnty., 197 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…under article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and rule 9.030(b)(3) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mandamus is issued to compel a trial court to perform a ministerial function, not a discretionary action. Bailem v. State, 984 So. 2d 604, 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Fraternal Order of Police v. Odio, 491 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (Mem) (“A writ of mandamus may be issued only where a petitioner has demonstrated a clear legal right on its part, an indisputable legal duty on the p…
-
Scott v. State, 73 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…rder is a final order. All claims, whether expressly addressed by the circuit court or not, were denied. It is not necessary for the lower tribunal to address every claim or subclaim with particularity in its final order. See, e.g., Bailem v. State, 984 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Holley v. State, 859 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. PETITION DENIED. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.…
-
Moskovits v. Crystal House, Inc., 141 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…tion because he has failed to assert — and indeed cannot assert — that the trial court violated any clear legal right of Moskovits, or that the trial court had an indisputable legal duty to grant his motion for summary judgment. See Bailem v. State, 984 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have n…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2000)
- Knight v. State, 923 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2005)
- Meryl S. McDONALD v. State, 952 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2006)
- Buckhalt v. McGHEE, 632 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Powell v. Allen, 748 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Nixon v. State, 748 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Jenkins v. State, 957 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State v. S.C.W., 718 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)