MICHAEL HOWARTH, A/K/A MIKEL HERNDON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
DENIED.
HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. W. SHARP, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
W. SHARP, Judge,
concurring.
Howarth seeks a writ of habeas corpus from this court to correct his sentence. He claims he was improperly classified as an habitual offender after his probation had been revoked. He also alleges he was denied proper jail credit against his sentence.
In a prior proceeding in this court (Case No. 93-2291), Howarth appealed from the trial court’s denial of his rule 3.850 motion, challenging his sentence on the same habitual offender ground he attempts to raise here for a second time. Habeas corpus may not be used to relitigate an issue raised previously on appeal or in a post-conviction motion. See Hardwick v. Dugger, 648 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1994). As to the jail credit issue, habeas corpus is not available to correct sentencing errors where an adequate remedy is available under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Washington v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). His petition should be denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Duggins, 691 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…o Maulden v. State, 617 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1993). Speculation must not play a part in the application of this rule, and it, of course, is not sufficient to show that some possible further investigation would have revealed the evidence. Ruffin v. State, 651 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). See also Bowen v. State, 685 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(speculation may not play a part in the inevitable discovery rule, the focus must be on demonstrated fact, capable of verification). In this case, the record establishes…
-
Hall v. State, 733 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ows that the evidence “ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857, 862 (Fla.1987) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444,104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)). See also Ruffin v. State, 651 So. 2d 206, 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In this case, the jail’s booking agent testified that he would have removed Hall’s ring during routine booking procedures. Accordingly, the police inevitably would have discovered the ring upon review of Hall’s personal eff…
Authorities Cited
- Hardwick v. Dugger, 648 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1994)
- Washington v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)