CURT BABER, 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.
Curt Baber appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on the court's alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a simultaneously pending habeas corpus petition. The court reverses and remands, holding that trial courts have jurisdiction to entertain post-conviction relief motions even when habeas petitions are pending, as there is no danger of conflicting rulings.
A trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a motion for post-conviction relief even when a habeas corpus petition is simultaneously pending in the appellate court, as there is no danger of conflicting rulings by different courts on the same issues.
[1] A trial court possesses subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a motion for post-conviction relief even when a habeas corpus petition concerning related issues is simul…
[2] A prisoner may pursue a motion for post-conviction relief and a petition for habeas corpus concurrently without risking conflicting rulings on the same issues.
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“a prisoner is entitled to pursue both a motion for post-conviction relief and a petition for habeas corpus simultaneously since there was no danger of conflicting rulings by different courts on the same issues”
Establishes the core holding that simultaneous proceedings do not create jurisdictional conflicts
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaber filed a motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850 while simultaneously having a habeas corpus petition pending in the appellate court a…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
[*491] PER CURIAM.
Appellant Curtis Baber appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain his motion while he had simultaneously pending a habeas corpus petition in this court alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings because the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Ba-ber’s motion for post-conviction relief on its merits. See Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1983) (explaining that a prisoner is entitled to pursue both a motion for post-conviction relief and a petition for habeas corpus simultaneously since there was no danger of conflicting rulings by different courts on the same issues). Indeed, the state conceded in its answer brief that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The state also acknowledged that the cause must be reversed and remanded to the trial court either for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the trial court record demonstrating that appellant is not entitled to relief.
This court previously rejected appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel in the habeas corpus petition. There, petitioner had argued that his appellate lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue on direct appeal that the trial court improperly struck an African American juror upon the state’s peremptory challenge. This court concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate in his petition for habeas corpus that trial counsel had properly preserved the error for appellate review.
The trial court, upon remand, shall entertain appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding jury selection in this prosecution. An evidentiary hearing may show that trial counsel failed to preserve the error. If such is the case, then the trial court shall determine if such failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel thereby entitling appellant to a new trial. If the evidentiary hearing shows that trial counsel preserved the error by timely objection to voir dire procedures and the state’s peremptory challenge, then appellant may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court for a belated appeal, pursuant to rule 9.140(j), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (1997).
REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
STONE, C.J., and DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Curt Baber v. State, 776 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…GROSS, J. This case involves Curt Baber’s petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise on direct appeal the issue of the state’s improper use of a peremptory challenge. In Baber v. State, 696 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), this court reversed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We directed the trial court to hold an evidentia-ry hearing on whether trial cou…
-
Gawronski v. State, 801 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ce of trial counsel is necessarily separate and distinct from a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the two claims may proceed simultaneously without danger of conflicting and confusing rulings by different courts); Baber v. State, 696 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of Gaw-ronski’s motion. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.…
-
Forisso v. State, 968 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…So. 2d 165 (Fla.1983) (explaining that motion for postconviction relief and petition for habeas corpus both may be pursued simultaneously because doing so presents no danger of conflicting rulings by different courts on same issues); Baber v. State, 696 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). His deadline for filing either one or both is the same: March 3, 2008, two years after the issuance of this court’s mandate in his direct appeal. The pendency of the instant rule 3.850 proceeding will not toll the time to file a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Francois v. Klein, 431 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1983)