BENITO SANTIAGO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Benito Santiago sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his 2012 first-degree murder conviction, claiming manifest injustice. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, denied the petition, finding that Santiago's case did not fall within the narrow exception for habeas corpus relief based on manifest injustice.
The court held that Santiago's case does not fall within the narrow exception for habeas corpus relief based on manifest injustice, and therefore the petition for habeas corpus was denied.
[1] A writ of habeas corpus may be used to correct a manifest injustice.
[2] The mere incantation of the words 'manifest injustice' is insufficient to warrant relief via habeas corpus.
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“That writ is enshrined in our Constitution to be used as a means to correct manifest injustices and its availability for use when all other remedies have been exhausted has served our society well over many centuries.”
Establishes the constitutional purpose and availability of habeas corpus as a remedy for manifest injustice when other remedies are exhausted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenito Santiago was convicted in 2012 of two counts of first-degree murder. He subsequently sought habeas corpus relief, invoking the manifest injusti…
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 Exhaustion Of Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 21, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D26-0010 Lower Tribunal No. F06-5240 Benito Santiago, Petitioner, VS. State of Florida, Respondent. A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus. Benito Santiago, in proper person. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for respondent. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Claiming manifest injustice, Petitioner Benito Santiago seeks a writ of habeas corpus attacking his 2012 conviction for two counts of first degree
murder. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1246 (Fla. 2004) (Anstead, C.J, specially concurring) (“That writ is enshrined in our Constitution to be used as a means to correct manifest injustices and its availability for use when all other remedies have been exhausted has served our society well over many centuries. This Court will, of course, remain alert to claims of manifest injustice, as will all Florida courts.”); Lightner v. State, 306 So. 3d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Under Florida law, appellate courts have the authority to correct a manifest injustice by way of habeas corpus."). "Nevertheless, this exception only applies to a narrow category of cases." Leach v. State, 406 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
Yet the “mere incantation of the words 'manifest injustice' does not make it so.” Beiro v. State, 289 So. 3d 511, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Finding this case does not fall within this narrow exception and no manifest injustice occurred, we deny the petition. Petition denied. 2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Maykel Beiro v. State, 289 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Leach v. State, 406 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)