BEAUFORD WHITE, PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD L. DUGGER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT 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.
Beauford White, facing execution, filed a last-minute habeas corpus petition raising constitutional challenges to his death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the petition was procedurally barred under state rules and constituted an abuse of process.
The petition is procedurally barred and denied. White failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, which requires post-conviction motions to be filed within thirty days of the death warrant's signing when execution is set at least sixty days out. Additionally, the issues raised were previously decided in prior post-conviction proceedings and are barred under Rule 3.850.
[1] A petition for extraordinary relief filed more than thirty days after the signing of a death warrant is procedurally barred when the warrant sets the execution at least s…
[2] A writ of habeas corpus is not a proper vehicle for raising issues that should have been raised on direct appeal, at trial, or in post-conviction relief proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been, raised in rule 3.850 proceedings”
Establishes the limitation on habeas corpus as a remedy and bars collateral attacks on issues that could have been raised earlier
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in 1981, and subsequen…
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 Extraordinary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
On 4 June 1987, the Governor signed a death warrant for Beauford White. This Court has previously affirmed White’s convictions for first-degree murder and his death sentences. White v. State, 403 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1981), cert, denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3571, 77 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1983). Subsequently, we denied post-conviction relief in Brown v. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.), cert denied, 454 U.S. 1000,102 S.Ct. 542, 70 L.Ed.2d 407 (1981), and State v. White, 470 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1985). In a petition filed 19 August 1987, White now seeks extraordinary relief, a writ of habeas corpus, and a stay of execution. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(9), Florida Constitution, and deny all relief.
The death warrant on White, signed 4 June 1987, set his execution for the week beginning 25 August 1987. When warrants set the execution at least sixty days from the date of signing, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 requires that motions and petitions of post-conviction or collateral relief be filed within thirty days of the date of signing. Petitioner has not shown that any exception to the rule exists. Thus, the petition is procedurally barred.
We note that although the petition is labelled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the issues raised are of the type which should properly be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which by its terms procedurally bars an application for writ of habeas corpus. We note also that by its terms, rule 3.850 procedurally bars motions for relief where the judgment and sentence, as here, have been final for more than two years or were final prior to 1 January 1985. Moreover, the primary issue raised here is the application of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), to White’s case. This issue was previously raised in post-conviction proceedings and disposed of in State v. White. Again, the issue raised is procedurally barred by the terms of rule 3.850.
It is clear from the above that this eleventh hour petition is an abuse of process. We point out again to the office of collateral counsel that habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been, raised in rule 3.850 proceedings. Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1987); Copeland v. Wainwright, 505 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1987).
Accordingly, we deny the petition. In view of the procedural bars and the time frame under which petitioner’s untimely filing places us, no petition for rehearing will be entertained.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (48 total)
-
Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)…r aggravator because the Court vacated the death sentence in the Epps case. See Freeman, 547 So. 2d at 129. This issue should be raised on direct appeal or in a motion for postconviction relief, rather than in a habeas petition. See White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1987). In fact, Freeman raised this issue in the motion for postconviction relief. There is no allegation that appellate counsel was ineffective. Finally, Freeman argues that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not ensuring th…
-
State v. Dist. Court of Appeal of Fla., 569 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1990)…rs that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Thus, rule 3.850 is intended to prohibit courts from entertaining habeas corpus petitions raising issues cognizable under the rule. In White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla.1987), this Court noted that although the petition is labelled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the issues raised are of the type which should properly be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal procedure 3.850, which by its terms p…
-
Williamson v. Dugger, 651 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1994)…not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been raised in rule 3.850 proceedings.” White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla.1987). We find that most of the claims raised in this habeas corpus petition are procedurally barred. We discuss only the claims that appellate counsel was ineffective in violation of Williamson’s sixth and fourteenth amendment rights. Th…
Previewing 3 of 48 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982)
- Blanco v. Louie L. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1987)
- Walls v. United States, 463 U.S. 1229 (U.S. 1983)
- Beauford White v. State, 403 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1981)
- Brown v. Wainwright, 454 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1981)
- Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Daley, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Beauford White, 470 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1985)
- Copeland v. Louie L. Wainwright, 505 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1987)