PABLO ROMERO, 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.
In this case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed a situation where two co-defendants tried together received disparate treatment on appeal—Romero's conviction was affirmed while his co-defendant Gonzalez's conviction was later reversed for the same error. The court granted Romero relief by treating his Rule 3.850 motion as a habeas corpus petition, holding that inconsistent appellate decisions warrant correction to ensure uniformity and fairness.
Romero is entitled to a new trial because the court's failure to give the lesser included offense instruction was erroneous. The proper procedure to remedy inconsistent appellate decisions is through a petition for habeas corpus filed directly in the appellate court rather than through a Rule 3.850 motion in the trial court, as the appellate court is the proper forum to determine consistency of its own decisions.
[1] A trial court cannot resolve inconsistencies between appellate court decisions.
[2] Relief from inconsistent appellate rulings affecting multiple defendants from a joint trial should be sought through a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed directly i…
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“The result is manifestly unjust, unfair and confounds our search for uniformity.”
Articulates the fundamental unfairness when co-defendants tried together receive disparate appellate treatment for identical errors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRomero and a co-defendant were jointly tried and convicted of trafficking in cocaine in excess of 400 grams under Florida Statutes section 893.135(1)(…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
We are confronted with a situation in which different defendants were tried together, appealed separately, and were treated disparately by this court. This appellant, whose conviction was previously affirmed, now seeks relief based on our subsequent reversal of the conviction of his co-defendant.
Appellant and a co-defendant were convicted of trafficking in cocaine in excess of 400 grams, a violation of section 893.135(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). This statute provided for increasing penalties as the amount of cocaine involved increased. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of trafficking in smaller amounts of cocaine, because the defendants had stipulated that the amount of cocaine involved was 980 grams.
Appellant appealed, arguing that he was entitled to the instruction, and this court affirmed without opinion on July 8,1992, ease number 91-0116, 605 So. 2d 86. Co-defendant Gonzalez appealed separately, and ten months later a different panel of this court held that Gonzalez was entitled to a new trial because the court erred in failing to give the lesser included instruction. Gonzalez v. State, 617 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
This is not the first time this has occurred, and, as Judge Letts said in Bourgault v. State, 515 So. 2d 1287, 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), “The result is manifestly unjust, unfair and confounds our search for uniformity.”
This court has procedures in place to avoid this very thing, one of which is a notice sent to all counsel which provides:
In criminal eases where multiple defendants participated in a joint trial, the parties shall notify the court of. any other appeals, whether pending or already concluded, from the same trial.
In the second appeal, Gonzalez, this notice was filed and this court apparently overlooked it. The notice was not filed in Romero’s appeal, although the public defender’s motion to withdraw based on a conflict of interest did reflect the fact that there were two appeals arising from this same trial.
The state does not argue that we should reconsider Gonzalez. Nor does it argue that appellant is not entitled to a new trial. The state does suggest that appellant followed the wrong procedure here.
Appellant sought relief by filing a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the trial court. As the trial court correctly recognized, however, it is the prerogative of the appellate court, not the trial court, to determine whether the appellate court’s opinions are inconsistent, and if so, what should be done about it. The trial court therefore properly denied the motion.
The state recommends, and we agree, that under these circumstances a petition for writ of habeas corpus should be filed directly in the appellate court which has rendered the inconsistent decisions.
Rule 3.850(h) provides:
Habeas Corpus. An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this rule shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court that sentenced the applicant or that the court has denied the applicant relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the applicant’s detention. (Emphasis added)
Since the trial court cannot resolve the appellate court’s inconsistent decisions, this is the type of ease in which a rule 3.850 motion in the trial court would be Made- quate. Accordingly, a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the appellate court is authorized by rule 3.850(h). We find analogous precedent for this in the fact that relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be sought by habeas corpus in the appellate court. State v. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, 569 So. 2d 439, 442 n. 1 (Fla.1990); Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981).
We therefore treat appellant’s rule 3.850 motion as a petition for habeas corpus, grant the petition, and remand for a new trial.
DELL, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 12 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…e in habeas corpus proceedings. See e.g., Adams v. State, 957 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Further, disparate treatment of co-defendants can result in manifest injustice. See Williams v. State, 947 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Romero v. State, 637 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, inconsistent decisions in separate, unrelated cases do not constitute disparate treatment. See Ousley v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corrections, 269 Fed.Appx. 884, 886-88 (11th Cir.2008). Harris claims disparate treatment base…
-
Brumit v. State, 971 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…nt jury). Habeas corpus filed in the appellate court is the proper method for seeking relief when co-defendants’ appeals on the same issue are resolved differently. See, e.g., Raulerson v. State, 724 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Romero v. State, 637 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Zeno v. State, 910 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), disagreed with on other grounds by Garzon v. State, 939 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), rev. granted, 956 So. 2d 455 (Fla.2007). The state concedes that the manifest injustice d…
-
Dorsey A. Sanders, III v. State, 689 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ed an amendment to his pending 3.850 motion thereby raising the same issue concerning the inconsistent appellate decisions in the trial court. The lower court correctly ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review the claim. In Romero v. State, 637 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), the Fourth District was confronted with the situation where different defendants were tried together, appealed separately, and received different results on appeal after raising the same issue. Romero filed a 3.850 motion, [*412…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Dist. Court of Appeal of Fla., 569 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1990)
- Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Bourgault v. State, 515 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Gonzalez v. State, 617 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)