EXCELLUS O. HYLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant challenged his amended sentence by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the trial court could not rescind previously awarded jail credit. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that a postconviction motion to correct illegal sentence is the proper remedy, not habeas corpus, and that the sentencing court in another circuit lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence.
A habeas corpus petition is not an appropriate remedy to challenge the legality of a sentence; a postconviction motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is the proper procedure. Additionally, a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to review or correct a sentence imposed by a court in another circuit.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is not an appropriate method to challenge a sentence when the remedy of a postconviction motion to correct an illegal sentence is ava…
[2] A trial court generally lacks jurisdiction to review the legality of a sentence imposed by a court in another circuit.
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“the remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure”
Establishes that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for challenging sentence legality; postconviction motions under rule 3.850 are required instead.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter remand for resentencing, the Miami-Dade circuit court sentenced Appellant to 11.93 years in prison with 6,109 days of jail credit. The Departmen…
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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petition was *502an improper method by which to challenge his sentence. We affirm. "
After remand by the Third District Court of Appeal for resentencing in casé number F97-12743, the circuit court in Miami-Dade County sentenced Appellant to 11.93 years in prison, and awarded him 6,109 days of jail credit. Appellee, the Department of Corrections, later sought “clarification” from the court regarding Appellant’s sentence, and the court “amended” the sentence to reflect just 1,442 days of jail credit. Appellant remains incarcerated pursuant to that amended, sentence, which he is currently serving in Santa Rosa County.
In his petition to the circuit court for Santa Rosa County, Appellant asserted he was'entitled to immediate release because the credit for time served in the original resentencing order was greater than the term of imprisonment imposed. Appellant argued that the trial court could not re scind the original 6,109 days of jail credit originally awarded, even if that award was made in error, citing Wheeler v. State, 880 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding thát that a “trial court may not sua sponte rescind jail credit previously awarded at any time even if the initial award was improper”).
Although Appellant insists his petition did not challenge the legality of his sentence, his-argument that the court lacked the legal ability to rescind the originally-awarded jail time credit did precisely that. As the trial court correctly found, Appellant’s remedy was to file a postconviction motion to correct illegal sentence, not a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1241 (Fla.2004) (holding “ ‘the remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure’ ”) (quoting Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So.2d 889, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)).
Furthermore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to correct the sentence, because the sentence was imposed' by a court in another circuit. See McLevy v. State, 787 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding “the circuit court for Jackson County has no jurisdiction to review the legality of a Clay County conviction; and a habeas petition may not be used to make a collateral attack upon the conviction”).'
Based on the foregoing, therefore, we AFFIRM the trial .court’s order dismissing the petition without prejudice, to Appellant to seek relief via a postconviction motion in the appropriate forum.
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., Concur. • . ■
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Excellus O. Hyland v. Inch, 291 So. 3d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…ntence entered by the trial court are “void and patently illegal.” We note that Mr. Hyland has raised identical claims in a prior petition for writ of habeas corpus, and this Court previously addressed and rejected the arguments. See Hyland v. State 179 So. 3d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (Hyland I). Because Mr. Hyland’s arguments have been previously adjudicated in this Court, they are precluded from being reconsidered here, absent exceptional circumstances. See Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Wheeler v. State, 880 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- McLEVY v. State, 787 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)