HAMPESLE LEE JOHNSON, SR., PETITIONER,
v.
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.
Hampesle Lee Johnson petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, alleging he was illegally convicted of an unspecified criminal charge in July 1980. The court denied the petition, holding that habeas corpus cannot be used to raise trial errors for the first time and that successive habeas petitions on the same matter are barred by res judicata.
The court held that habeas corpus may not be used as a vehicle to raise for the first time issues that could have been raised during trial and on appeal. Additionally, res judicata prevents a petitioner from filing successive habeas corpus applications on the same matter to different courts after an initial filing in the circuit court.
[1] Habeas corpus may not be used to raise issues that could have been raised at trial or on appeal.
[2] Res judicata applies to prevent repetitious applications for habeas corpus to successive courts when the same matter has been previously decided.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Habeas corpus may not be used as a vehicle to raise for the first time issues that the petitioner could have raised during his trial and on appeal.”
Establishes the primary limitation on habeas corpus petitions—they cannot serve as a substitute for direct appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was convicted of an unspecified criminal charge in July 1980. He filed two or more petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the circuit court, …
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 Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The petitioner, Hampesle Lee Johnson, Sr., has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was illegally found guilty of some unspecified criminal charge in July of 1980 and showing that he has heretofore filed two or more petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the circuit court, the last of which was denied on August 13, 1980. The petition in this court complains of various errors alleged to have occurred before or during his trial. Habeas corpus may not be used as a vehicle to raise for the first time issues that the petitioner could have raised during his trial and on appeal. Hargrave v. Wainwright, 388 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1980).
Also, when a petitioner first files an original proceeding in the circuit court seeking a writ of habeas corpus, he cannot thereafter, on the same matter, properly file a petition for habeas corpus in a district court of appeal because such an original proceeding is not a proper remedy to seek review of the circuit court’s denial and, further, because the constitution gives concurrent jurisdiction over habeas corpus to the circuit court, district courts of appeal, and the supreme court, res judicata applies to prevent repetitious applications upon the same matter to successive courts. State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1973); Lamberti v. Wainwright, 284 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1973); Mitchell v. Wainwright, 155 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1963); Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Baker, 346 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
The petitioner also files a motion for an appeal bond citing Rule 3.820(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, that rule relates to bail pending a review of a decision discharging a prisoner on habeas corpus and in this case the trial court did not discharge the petitioner. From petitioner’s petition and motion it appears that Rule 3.820(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, more appropriately applies and that rule provides that the custody of the prisoner shall not be disturbed pending review by the appellate court. Accordingly, the motion for bail is denied.
Without prejudice to any rights which the petitioner might have to seek review by appeal,1 the application for a writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED.
ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . This court has jurisdiction to review by appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(1)(A) the final order of the circuit court acting on the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the circuit court but such an appeal must be timely. Fla. R.App.P. 9.110(b).
Although this successive writ for habeas corpus is, in one sense of the phrase, an improper remedy, we do not apply Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c) and treat it as an appeal of the circuit court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus because his petitions in the circuit court are facially insufficient and because the petition for habeas corpus in this court complains not of error in the circuit court’s denial of his writ of habeas corpus but of alleged errors in matters involving his criminal trial. To find a remedy for petitioner’s complaints we would be required to treat his petition as an appeal of his criminal conviction.
Rule 9.040(c) does not require that we go that far. Petitioner in this case does not suggest that state action has thwarted an appeal of his conviction nor does he by his present petition to this court seek a belated appeal under Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1967), cert. den. 391 U.S. 968, 88 S.Ct. 2040, 20 L.Ed.Zd 882 (1968), and Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meyer v. State, 415 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…37 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); State exrel Arnold v. State, 233 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Other cases have recognized the right, although denying the petition for relief based on the particular facts of the case. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 390 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Willis v. Wainwright, 375 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also Pressley v. Wainwright, 367 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1979) (England, J., dissenting); cf. Mercer v. Wainwright, 376 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1979) (Adkins, J., dissenting). . “In b…
-
Livingston Mason v. State, 627 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ssive petition which raises grounds that were previously raised and disposed of, the ruling of the trial court is affirmed. See Francois v. Wainwright, 470 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1985); State v. Dearing, 513 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 390 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). AFFIRMED. HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.…
-
Robinson v. State, 963 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ition for writ of certiorari as an appeal because a direct appeal is the appropriate method to review a circuit court order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the circuit court. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A); Johnson v. State, 390 So. 2d 1234, 1235 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). [*292] Robinson filed a petition for writ of ha-beas corpus in the circuit court for Volusia County, attacking an habitual offender sentence imposed in the circuit court for Polk County, Florida. The trial court corre…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1967)
- State of Fla. ex rel. William Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1973)
- Berend v. Louie L. Wainwright, 155 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1963)
- Lenson A. Hargrave v. Louie L. Wainwright, 388 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1980)
- Mayes v. Vincent, 391 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1968)
- Evans v. United States, 391 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1968)
- Lamberti v. Louie L. Wainwright, 284 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1973)
- Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n v. Baker, 346 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)