WILLIE J. DARDEN, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADULT 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.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus is not the proper method to challenge alleged errors that should have been raised in a motion under CrPR 1.850, unless specific criteria are met.
Petitioner filed a motion under CrPR 1.850 alleging trial court error, which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner then filed a petiti…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner alleges that he has previously filed a motion in the trial court under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. which set forth the same allegations as are contained in this petition. It is alleged that petitioner’s motion under CrPR 1.850 was denied by the trial court without an evidentiary hearing. The order denying petitioner’s motion under CrPR 1.850 was not appealed to this court.
All of the allegations except one (hereinafter discussed) are of the type which are properly considered by way of a motion under CrPR 1.850. Therefore, this petition for writ of habeas corpus is not the proper method for challenging the alleged errors.
Petitioner’s allegation, alluded to above as not properly raised under CrPR 1.850, urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion under CrPR 1.850 without affording him an evidentiary hearing. If this case were in the posture of a direct *140appeal from such order the position taken by the petitioner might well be valid.
We have carefully examined this petition and there are no allegations contained therein which would bring it under the holding in Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239, whereby the petitioner should be afforded an appellate review of the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s motion under CrPR 1.850.
For the foregoing reasons the petition is denied.
HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Broom, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…d Rule 3 motion was an abuse of process and the summary denial thereof. We think that the proper method to challenge a Rule 3 order, whether or not summarily denied, is by appeal and not by filing a habeas corpus petition. See Darden v. Wainwright, 236 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). In fact, as stated above, appel-lee did appeal the denial of his second Rule 3 motion and this court affirmed. Appellee may not get a “third opinion” by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in another circuit. There are t…
-
Ford v. Louie L. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1984)…uring the sentencing phase, but did not raise this issue. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to raise the issue here. See Johnson v. State, 185 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla.1966); Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Darden v. Wainwright, 236 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Furthermore, petitioner’s reliance on Rose v. State, 425 So. 2d 521 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1883, 76 L.Ed.2d 812 (1983), and Harich v. State, 437 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1329,…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)