JOSEF WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL D. CREWS, SECRETARY, 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.
Josef Williams petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent transfer of his habeas corpus petition to his sentencing court, claiming the sentencing judge failed to take the required oath of office. The Florida District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that habeas corpus is not available for collateral postconviction relief and that the circuit court's transfer or dismissal of the petition would not exceed its jurisdiction.
The court denied the writ of prohibition, holding that Williams failed to establish that transferring his petition would constitute an act outside of or in excess of the circuit court's jurisdiction. The court held that habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain collateral postconviction relief, which is properly addressed through motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[1] Prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that the lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction.
[2] The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain collateral postconviction relief cognizable by motion in the sentencing court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that the lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction”
Establishes the standard for granting prohibition relief, which requires showing lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJosef Williams sought to file a habeas corpus petition arguing his judgment and sentence were void because his sentencing judge did not take the requi…
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 Collateral Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Josef Williams seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the circuit court in the county in which he is confined from transferring his petition for writ of habeas corpus to his sentencing court. The habeas petition Williams intends to file will argue that his judgment and sentence is void because the sentencing judge did not take the required oath of office. We deny relief, concluding that petitioner has failed to establish that the transfer of his petition would amount to an act outside of or in excess of the circuit court’s jurisdiction, so as to warrant prohibition relief. See English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293, 296 (Fla. 1977) (prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that the lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction).
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 Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). Under current law, habeas petitions are proper only to address issues regarding a defendant’s incarceration, not the sentence leading to the incarceration. See Farrell v. State, 62 So.3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Petitioner’s habeas claim is clearly a matter cognizable by motion for postconviction relief, and the remedy of habeas corpus is .therefore unavailable to him. If petitioner is procedurally barred from seeking relief in his sentencing court, dismissal of his petition rather than its transfer may in fact be the appropriate outcome. See Zuluaga v. State, Department of Corrections, 32 So.3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Either disposition, however, would clearly not amount to an act outside of or in excess of the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Williams has therefore failed to state a basis for prohibition relief.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DENIED.
LEWIS, THOMAS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shird T. Myrick v. Inch, 303 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…3d DCA 2015) (reviewing transfer order as a nonfinal, appealable order concerning venue); Harris v. State, 133 So. 3d 1169, 1170-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (reviewing transfer order as a nonfinal, appealable order regarding venue); Williams v. Crews, 111 So. 3d 301, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reviewing transfer order through a petition for writ of prohibition); Magwood v. Tucker, 98 So. 3d 725, 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reviewing transfer order as a nonfinal, appealable order concerning venue); Jean-Simon v. S…
-
Franklin v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…ief, rendered by the trial court on December 1, 2020, is hereby AFFIRMED. The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed September 29, 2020, and transferred to this Court June 11, 2021, is hereby DISMISSED as unauthorized. See Williams v. Crews, 111 So. 3d 301, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). ROWE, C.J., and LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. 2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. ____________________________…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- Heldrado Zuluaga v. State, 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Farrell v. State, 62 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)