JAMES VERTREE, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of habeas corpus, allowing the petitioner to reapply for relief in the trial court. This was based on a subsequent ruling that might entitle him to an evidentiary hearing.
The Court discharged the writ of habeas corpus but allowed the petitioner to renew his motion in the trial court for reconsideration in light of the subsequent ruling.
“The application for habeas corpus here indicates the possibility that the petitioner may be entitled to an evidentiary hearing in view of our opinion in Mason v. State, 176 So. 2d 76.”
This quote establishes the basis for the court's consideration of the petitioner's claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sought release via habeas corpus after his prior application for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 was denied without an evidentia…
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 Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner seeks release from the State prison on an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
It appears that the petitioner has previously applied to the trial judge for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. His application was denied without an evidentiary hearing. The denial was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal. Vertree v. State, 168 So. 2d 771. The application for habeas corpus here indicates the possibility that the petitioner may be entitled to an evidentiary hearing in view of our opinion in Mason v. State, 176 So.2d 76. Our opinion in Mason was rendered subsequent to the judgment of the trial court and subsequent to the decision of the District Court of Appeal in Vertree v. State, supra.
The writ of habeas corpus heretofore issued herein is discharged and the petitioner is remanded to custody without prej*421udice, however, to the privilege of renewing his motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 in the trial court for reconsideration by the trial judge in the light of our opinion in Mason v. State, supra.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, O’CONNELL and BARNS (Ret.), JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)…cases. The issues brought to us in this appeal are asserted by Witt to be based, essentially, on two judicial decisions involving changes of law-Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974), and Vertree v. Wainwright, 184 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1966). The latter is purely an application of the limited role for post-conviction relief which was spawned by Gideon, for Vertree authorized collateral review based on a change of law reflected in a case which had held that post-conviction re…
Authorities Cited
- Mason v. State, 176 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1965)
- Mather v. Richard M. Winokur ad Litem of the Estate of Orion A. Mather, 168 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)