JEFFREY RENIEWICZ, A/K/A JEFFREY WAGNER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the extradition demand complied with statutory requirements.
Jeffrey Reniewiez challenged an arrest based on an extradition warrant from Wisconsin. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion to…
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
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Reniewiez a/k/a Jeffrey Wagner seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging an arrest based on an extradition warrant. The proper vehicle for review of a trial court’s ruling on a petition for habeas corpus in this circumstance is by appeal, and we have treated his petition as an appeal. See Henry v. State, 496 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (reviewing appeal from trial court’s denial of habeas petition). The petition served as Reniewicz’s initial brief; the State filed a response to the petition; and Reniewiez replied to the State’s response.
Reniewiez filed the petition below to test the legality of an arrest on an extradition warrant issued by the Governor pursuant to a demand for extradition by the state of Wisconsin. Because the Wisconsin demand complies with section 941.03, Florida Statutes (1997), we affirm the order denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Reniewiez also sought review of the trial court’s denial of a motion to quash the extradition warrant. His motion to quash addressed the sufficiency of the extradition warrant, as did the habeas petition. Section 941.40 authorizes a defendant to test the legality of an arrest on an extradition warrant by habeas petition. Consequently, the motion to quash was not the appropriate method through which to seek review of the extradition warrant.
Affirmed.
FULMER, A.C.J., and STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sumler v. State, 958 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…order of the circuit court granting or denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus is reviewable by appeal to the appropriate district court of appeal.” See Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 28.6 (2002); see also Reniewicz v. State, 734 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“The proper vehicle for review of a trial [*1003] court’s ruling on a petition for habeas corpus in this circumstance is by appeal”). Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s order denying appellant’s Motion for Relief f…
-
Hayes v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Henry v. State, 496 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)