CLARY JAMISON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, APPELLEE
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.
Clary Jamison appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, arguing the trial court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction because he was incarcerated in another county. The court affirmed the dismissal, treating the petition as a time-barred postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial. While the trial court correctly lacked jurisdiction because habeas petitions must be filed in the county where the prisoner is detained, the court treated the petition as a postconviction motion challenging the legality of the sentence and found it time-barred under the two-year limitation in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed in the county in which the prisoner is detained.
[2] A trial court's conclusion or decision will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it, even if based on erroneous reasoning.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed in the county in which the prisoner is detained.”
Establishes jurisdictional requirement for habeas corpus petitions based on location of prisoner's incarceration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJamison filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Nassau County Circuit Court while incarcerated in a different county. The petition challenged th…
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 Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging its finding that it lacked jurisdiction, as Appellant was incarcerated in another county. Because we treat the petition as a postconviction motion challenging the legality of his sentence and find that it was time barred, we affirm.
The trial court’s dismissal was based on findings of law, which we review de novo. See Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 772 (Fla.2004) (holding appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo). We affirm the trial court’s ruling, although not on the grounds stated by the lower court. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (holding that “[e]ven when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it.”).
The Nassau County Circuit Court was correct in denying Appellant’s petition, because it lacked jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when Appellant was not incarcerated in the same county as the court. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed in the county in which the prisoner is detained. § 79.09, Fla. Stat. We, however, treat Appellant’s petition as a postconviction motion, as it challenges the legality of his sentence, and deny it because it was time barred. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (“motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence became final.”). This bar is jurisdictional and may not be waived. See Ferenc v. State, 697 So.2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (holding that “[i]n the absence of an exception, a motion filed outside the two-year period will not invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court.”). The two-year time limitation for postconviction motions cannot be avoided by the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Finley v. State, 394 So.2d 215, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that “[t]he remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850”).
Appellant is warned that this is his fourth attempt to obtain collateral relief, and it is a frivolous filing. As this court noted in Clift v. State, 43 So.3d 778, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), filings without merit or frivolous filings may result in Appellant’s referral to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures in accordance with section 944.279, Florida Statutes.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delancy v. Tucker, 88 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…nce became final long before he filed the 2011 petition. See Earls v. State, 958 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Thus, Appellant missed the two-year filing deadline in rule 3.850(b), which is a bar that generally cannot be waived. Jamison v. State, 73 So. 3d 317, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Meyer v. State, 570 So. 2d 1001, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). A petitioner cannot circumvent the two-year filing limitation by seeking habeas corpus relief. Jamison, 73 So. 3d at 318; Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla.…
-
Sholone Lewis v. State, 217 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jamison v. State, 73 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that, if filed more than two years after sentence is final, motion may not be considered. “This bar is jurisdictional and may not be waived.”).…
-
Gyden v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
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
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Sochor v. State, 883 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2004)
- Earnest James Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Clift v. State, 43 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Ferenc v. State, 697 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)