DION LEE HOUGHTALING, 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.
The court held that a petition for writ of habeas corpus that meets the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 should be treated as a motion for postconviction relief.
Dion Houghtaling filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court summarily denied. Houghtaling argued that the petition should have …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Dion Houghtaling appeals from the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Houghtaling argues, and we agree, that the petition should have been treated as a motion for posteonviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and considered on its merits.
The petition is simply an incorrectly styled motion for postconviction relief. The motion satisfies the procedural requirements of Rule 3.850, contains a proper oath, was filed within the prescribed two-year period, and, in fact, mirrors the official form for postconviction relief provided at Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. The only infirmity we detect is the styling of the motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In an appended memorandum of law, Houghtaling requested the trial court to treat the petition, if appropriate, as a motion for postconviction relief. We find the trial court’s summary denial a response to form rather than substance.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to treat Houghtaling’s petition as a timely filed motion for postconviction relief. See generally Miller v. State, 617 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Lemus v. State, 585 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franklin v. State, 31 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ule 3.850, and raised claims that would be appropriate in a rule 3.850 motion. Because Franklin’s motion met the procedural requirements of rule 3.850, the court should have treated it as a motion for postconviction relief. See Houghtaling v. State, 670 So. 2d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and re- [*949] mancl for the circuit court to treat Franklin’s motion as if it had been filed under rule 3.850. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.…
-
Davis v. State, 154 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…o file such a motion has passed, the postconviction court should consider it under rule 3.850 so long as it meets the procedural requirements under that rule. See Franklin v. State, 31 So. 3d 948, 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing Houghtaling v. State, 670 So. 2d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)). As in Franklin, Davis’s motion was timely, under oath, and raised claims that would be appropriate in a rule 3.850 motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider the motion under that…
-
McCRAY v. State, 104 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…50 or dismissed it without prejudice to file such a motion. See Barnes v. Crosby, 909 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not a substitute for a proper post-conviction motion); Houghtaling v. State, 670 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (explaining that a petition for writ of habeas corpus that satisfies the requirements of rule 3.850 should be treated as such). The trial court did neither. After the petition had been pending for six months without an order from…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 617 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Lemus v. State, 585 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)