EDDIE COLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Eddie Collins sought habeas corpus relief as a pretrial detainee challenging the adequacy of his court-appointed counsel. The Florida appellate court dismissed his appeal, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for challenging counsel's representation and that such claims must be raised postconviction using Rule 3.850 procedures.
Habeas corpus is not the authorized method for challenging the adequacy of counsel's representation. Claims regarding the effectiveness of court-appointed counsel must be raised postjudgment using Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 procedures. The petition became moot upon imposition of sentence.
[1] Habeas corpus is not the authorized method for challenging the adequacy of court-appointed counsel's representation.
[2] Arguments regarding the adequacy of counsel's representation are generally presented post-judgment under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 the authorized method for challenging the adequacy of counsel's representation.”
Establishes the core holding that habeas corpus is an improper remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1989, Collins, a pretrial detainee in Charlotte County, filed a habeas corpus petition expressing dissatisfaction with his court-appointed …
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 Adequacy Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eddie Collins appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal.
In January, 1989, while a pretrial detainee in Charlotte County, Collins filed his petition. An examination of the petition reveals that Collins was dissatisfied with the services of his court-appointed counsel. The trial court denied the petition and Collins was subsequently convicted and sentenced. Although Collins filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying habeas corpus relief, that notice did not specify the nature of the order being appealed. On February 22, 1989, this court ordered Collins to file an amended notice. No response to this order was received until December 22, 1989.
Habeas corpus is not the authorized method for challenging the adequacy of counsel’s representation. State v. Broom, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Generally such an argument is presented postjudgment, using the procedures governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. An unsuccessful ruling may thereafter be appealed. Conceivably, a defendant could petition this court for certiorari review of a pretrial order involving his right to counsel. However, such proceedings most commonly involve a trial court’s interference with the right of a party to secure counsel of his choice. See, e.g., DeArce v. State, 405 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We would discourage use of the writ to review every grievance between a defendant and his court-appointed counsel; certainly, Collins’s scattershot and con-clusory petition fails to justify such an extraordinary remedy. In any event, this particular petition became moot with the imposition of sentence.
Further complicating matters is Collins’s attempt to raise similar sixth amendment issues by interjecting additional facts directly within the notice of appeal. The trial court is the proper forum for initial consideration of such claims. Accordingly, our dismissal is without prejudice to Collins to file a sworn motion in circuit court, following the procedures outlined in rule 3.850.
Appeal dismissed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. State, 801 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to Baker’s filing a timely, facially sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Collins v. State, 559 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Broom, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- DeARCE v. State, 405 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)