DANIEL MATHIS, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, ET AL., 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.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal denied appellee's motion to dismiss an appeal from a circuit court's summary denial of a habeas corpus petition, holding that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition despite the appellant being incarcerated in a different county.
The circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions regardless of where the prisoner is incarcerated. While section 79.09, Florida Statutes imposes a venue requirement rather than a jurisdictional bar, and the trial court may not have power to order release, the court may remand the petition to the appropriate county if needed.
[1] Circuit courts possess subject matter jurisdiction to hear petitions for writs of habeas corpus.
[2] A statutory requirement that a habeas corpus petition be filed in the county of detention is a venue requirement, not a subject matter jurisdiction requirement.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 circuit courts of this state are vested with the subject matter jurisdiction to entertain petitions for writs of habeas corpus.”
Establishes the foundational principle that all Florida circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions under the state constitution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Mathis, incarcerated in Union County, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in circuit court. The circuit court summarily denied the petit…
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 Personal Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*97] ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appellee’s motion to dismiss an appeal from an order entered by the circuit court summarily denying appellant’s petition for writ of habe-as corpus without explanation. Appellant is incarcerated in Union County, as he was at the time of the proceedings below. Because appellant is not incarcerated in the county in which he filed his petition, appel-lee contends the lower court was without jurisdiction. We deny the motion to dismiss.
The circuit courts of this state are vested with the subject matter jurisdiction to entertain petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Art. V, section 5(b), Florida Constitution. Although, under section 79.09, Florida Statutes, the circuit court would not necessarily have had the power to order the petitioner’s release, had the court found merit in the petition, the requirement of that section is in the nature of a venue requirement. State ex rel. Wainwright v. Holley, 234 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1970). We recognize that Newman v. Hornsby, 385 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), could be construed as holding that a trial court has no subject matter jurisdiction when the prisoner is not within the trial court’s county. However, we find that case distinguishable in that it involved competing circuit courts in a child custody proceeding. It is not uncommon for courts to use the term “jurisdiction” to describe the court which is the most appropriate forum to determine such matters, even though technical jurisdiction lies in more than one court. See Hamill v. Bower, 487 So. 2d 345, 11 FLW 227 (Fla. 1st DCA January 1986).
If appellant is ultimately successful in his challenge of the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus, this court clearly has both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over appellee and is empowered to fashion an appropriate disposition of the cause, including, if need be, remanding the cause with directions that the petition for habeas corpus be transferred to the circuit court of the county in which appellant is detained. See section 47.091 and section 47.172, Florida Statutes.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied and appellee is directed to file its answer brief within 10 days of this date.
THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BAR-FIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 760 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…nd as the bulwark against unlawful deprivation of liberty article 1, section 13 of the Florida Constitution fcontemplates. Although section 79.09, Florida Statutes (1999), can be viewed as authority for a change of venue, see Mathis v. Wainwright, 484 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), I would grant the petition seeking enforcement of the mandate we issued in the wake of our earlier decision remanding to the Third Circuit “for consideration of the petition on the merits.” Williams v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 739…
Authorities Cited
- Hamill v. Bower, 487 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Louie L. Wainwright v. Holley, 234 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Newman v. Hornsby, 385 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Hornsby v. The Honorable H. Eugene Fischer, 385 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)