DARYL KEITH BURNS
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.
Daryl Keith Burns appealed the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and sentence. The court reversed and remanded, holding that while the trial court correctly rejected the petition, it should have dismissed rather than denied it because habeas corpus cannot be used to collaterally attack a conviction or sentence.
A trial court should dismiss, rather than deny, a habeas corpus petition that seeks to collaterally attack a conviction or sentence, as such use of habeas corpus is unauthorized.
“a petition for writ of habeas corpus could not be used as a substitute for raising issues on direct appeal or in a motion for postconviction relief”
Establishes the principle that habeas corpus has limited scope and cannot bypass established appellate procedures
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurns filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he challenged his conviction and sentence. The trial court denied the petition on the ground…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Daryl Keith Burns appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he challenged his conviction and sentence. The trial court denied Burns’ petition stating that a petition for writ of habeas corpus could not be used as a substitute for raising issues on direct appeal or in a motion for postconviction relief. While the trial court’s reasoning and finding that Burns was not entitled to relief were correct, it should have dismissed Burns’ petition rather than deny it. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245−46 (Fla. 2004) (finding habeas petitions collaterally attacking an underlying conviction or sentence should be dismissed as unauthorized).
Because the trial court should have dismissed Burns’ claim, we reverse and remand with instruction to dismiss Burns’ petition for writ of habeas corpus as unauthorized.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instruction.
MAKAR, SOUD, and KILBANE, JJ., concur. _____________________________