CARLOS M. MAXWELL
v.
MARK S. INCH, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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 appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus raising multiple claims regarding his conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that habeas corpus was an improper vehicle for the claims raised and that the claims were time-barred under Florida criminal procedure rules.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that habeas corpus is an improper method for collaterally attacking a judgment and sentence when the claims raised should or could have been presented on direct appeal or in post-conviction relief proceedings, and that such claims would be time-barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[1] Habeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a judgment and sentence or to challenge issues that should or could have been raised on direct appeal or in rule 3.85…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity and sufficiency of evidence, the court's authority to impose his judgmen…
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 Direct Appeal Review cases and more on FLexlaw
August 9, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus on multiple grounds. Finding no merit in his claims, we affirm.
A petition for habeas corpus is intended to address issues regarding a defendant’s incarceration. Farrell v. State, 62 So. 3d 20, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). It may not be used to collaterally attack a judgment and sentence. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004). Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining review of issues which were raised, could have been raised, or should have been raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings. See Zuluaga v. Dep’t of Corrs., 32 So. 3d 674, 676-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Here, Appellant challenges the validity and sufficiency of the evidence, the authority of the court to impose the judgment and sentence, and the constitutionality of his conviction. These claims should or could have been raised on direct appeal, or in a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Therefore, a petition for writ of habeas corpus was an improper method for requesting relief. Even if the claims raised in the petition were treated as filed properly in a post-conviction motion, the claims would be time-barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
AFFIRMED.
MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Carlos M. Maxwell, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knecht v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Maxwell v. Inch, 277 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Zuluaga v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). ROBERTS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App.…
Authorities Cited
- Heldrado Zuluaga v. State, 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)