ROBERTO VALDEZ, JOHN S. SMITH, AMOS LEE GARDNER, AND RICKY RUST, PETITIONERS,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND JUDGE KATHLEEN A. KEARNEY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, RESPONDENTS
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 Second District Court of Appeal transferred petitioners' habeas corpus petition challenging their pretrial detention under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, finding that the Fourth District was the proper forum because the detainees were held in a Martin County facility despite the detention orders being issued in Pinellas County.
The Second District declined to exercise jurisdiction and transferred the petition to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, determining that the Fourth District was the appropriate court to resolve the issues because it had the constitutional power to issue a writ requiring the petitioners' release from the Martin County facility, whereas the Second District did not.
[1] A court may decline to exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction if another appellate court has the constitutional power to issue a writ requiring release from detention.
[2] A court may decline to exercise certiorari jurisdiction when the challenged orders were rendered more than thirty days prior to the filing of the petition, even if a late…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This court has no constitutional power to issue a writ requiring the petitioners' release from detention in the Martin County facility if it is ultimately determined that their detention is void or illegal.”
Establishes the basis for declining habeas corpus jurisdiction—lack of constitutional power to grant relief outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFour petitioners filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of their pretrial detention under secti…
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 Jimmy Ryce Act cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Florida challenging, among other things, the constitutionality of their pretrial detention under sections 916.31-49, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), commonly known as the Jimmy Ryce Act. On April 5, 1999, the Supreme Court of Florida transferred the petition to this court.
Although the challenged orders were issued in Pinellas County by a judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, the petition alleges that the petitioners are all being detained in a facility in Martin County. This court accordingly issued an order to show cause asking the parties to address whether this court was the proper forum for this proceeding or whether this proceeding should be transferred to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Petitioners filed a response to the order to show cause; respondents filed a reply to petitioners’ response, as well as a supplemental reply. Having carefully considered these filings, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over the petition and transfer it, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(b), to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. We determine that the Fourth District Court of Appeal is the appropriate court to resolve the issues raised by the petition.
This court has no constitutional power to issue a writ requiring the petitioners’ release from detention in the Martin County facility if it is ultimately determined that their detention is void or illegal. See Alachua Regional Juvenile Detention Center v. T.O., 684 So. 2d 814, 816(Fla.1996). The Fourth District Court of Appeal does. Id. We therefore decline to exercise our habeas corpus jurisdiction over the petition.
We also decline to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction. As respondents point out, all of the orders determining probable cause were rendered more than thirty days prior to the petition being filed in the Supreme Court of Florida. Although the order denying petitioners’ request for appointment of a confidential mental health professional was rendered within thirty days of the petition’s filing, we believe this order should be reviewed in conjunction with petitioners’ other challenges to the Jimmy Ryce Act.
We accordingly transfer the petition to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., v Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray v. Regier, 872 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2002)…which has territorial jurisdiction over the prison where the prisoner is detained and noting that proper respondent in a habeas petition is the party that has actual custody and is in a position to physically produce the prisoner); Valdez v. Moore, 745 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (declining to exercise jurisdiction over habeas petition challenging constitutionality of pretrial detention under Jimmy Ryce Act where petitioners were detained in the territorial jurisdiction of the Fourth District Court of Appe…
Authorities Cited
- Alachua Reg'l Juv. Detention Ctr. v. T.O., 684 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1996)