HENCILE DORSEY
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.
Hencile Dorsey appealed a circuit court decision in a post-conviction collateral attack proceeding. The appellate court affirmed, holding that issues that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal are not cognizable through collateral attack procedures.
Issues that either were or could have been litigated at trial and upon direct appeal are not cognizable through collateral attack. Successive motions that have been heard, considered, and rejected cannot be properly raised again.
[1] Issues that could have been litigated on direct appeal are not cognizable in a collateral attack on a judgment of conviction or sentence.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Issues which either were or could have been litigated at trial and upon direct appeal are not cognizable through collateral attack.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that post-conviction collateral relief cannot be used to raise issues available on direct appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHencile Dorsey filed a collateral attack challenging the lawfulness of his incarceration in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The lower court rejected …
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 Collateral Attack On Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 15, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1325 Lower Tribunal No. F19-13538
Hencile Dorsey, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel de la O, Judge.
Hencile Dorsey, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Muhammad v. State, 603 So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 1992) ("Issues which either were or could have been litigated at trial and upon direct appeal are not cognizable through collateral attack."); see also Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“We recognize that incarcerated persons must be provided with a full panoply of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarceration. On the other hand, successive motions which have been heard, considered, rejected, and then raised again, are an abuse of process." (internal citations omitted)); Gardner v. State, 550 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) ("[A]ppellant's speedy trial argument could and should have been raised on direct appeal and consequently, was improperly raised pursuant to Rule 3.850.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Askari Abdullah Muhammad v. State, 603 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1992)
- Gardner v. State, 550 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)