ALFRED JEROME PINDER, 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.
Alfred Jerome Pinder appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and raises a new claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that Pinder used an inappropriate vehicle for relief and that his claims were either previously raised or waived.
The trial court properly dismissed the habeas petition because it was an inappropriate vehicle for relief and was time-barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellate court also denied Pinder's claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as barred by laches.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is an inappropriate vehicle for relief when the issues raised were previously raised, should have been raised on direct appeal, were…
[2] A trial court correctly declines to convert a petition for writ of habeas corpus into a motion for postconviction relief when the specific relief sought is time-barred.
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“Thus, the trial court properly concluded that Pinder was seeking an inappropriate vehicle for relief.”
Establishes that the habeas petition was the wrong procedural mechanism for addressing issues that should have been raised on direct appeal or through postconviction procedures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePinder filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in circuit court challenging errors he claimed occurred during a 1977 trial. The issues presented re…
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 Petition For Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alfred Jerome Pinder appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. In this pro se appeal, Pinder also presents an issue pertaining to the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel which we address on the merits as an original petition for review and which we deny.
In his petition filed with the circuit court, Pinder did not raise any issues pertaining to the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as he has in the brief filed with this court. Pinder’s petition was lodged against errors he claimed occurred during a 1977 trial which he asserted were fundamental in nature. From the record before this court, as well as the prior opinions involving Pinder’s case, it appears that the issues he presented to the circuit court were all matters which were previ ously raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal; were possibly waived at trial; or which were previously raised, or should have been raised, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Pinder v. State, 637 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Pinder v. State, 431 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pinder v. State, 366 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), approved, 375 So. 2d 836 (1979), receded from by State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981). Thus, the trial court properly concluded that Pinder was seeking an inappropriate vehicle for relief. See White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1987). Further, because the specific relief sought was time-barred under Rule 3.850, the trial court correctly declined to convert Pin-der’s petition for writ of habeas corpus into a motion for postconviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm.
By the inclusion of his second issue in this pro se appeal, Pinder suggests that we treat his brief as an original petition. Because any claim that Pinder might have had for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is barred by laches, we deny it, on the merits, as an independent petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j). See McCray v. State, 699 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1997).
Order dismissing petition for writ of ha-beas corpus affirmed. Petition for review denied.
PATTERSON, C.J., and CAMPBELL and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…t treating the petition as a rule 3.850 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition, although on a different ground than the one relied on by the trial court.”) (citing Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(h); Baker, Pinder v. State, 779 So. 2d 309, 309-10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). Although Richardson’s petition should have been summarily dismissed by the trial court, prudence dictates that, for purposes of judicial economy, we should affirm the order denying the petition rather than vacate it and…
-
Collins v. State, 859 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…86 (Fla.2002); Hildwin v. Dugger, 654 So. 2d 107 (Fla.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 965, 116 S.Ct. 420, 133 L.Ed.2d 337 (1995); Breedlove; Suarez v. Dugger, 527 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1988); Dennis v. State, 769 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Pinder v. State, 779 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), review denied, 762 So. 2d 917 (Fla.2000). [*1247] Moreover, a petition for writ of habeas corpus may not be used to circumvent the time limitations for filing an appropriate motion for postconviction relief. Carter; Bryant; Green…
-
Razz v. State, 828 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 79.09, Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Alday v. Singletary, 719 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). A trial court can convert an improperly filed habeas corpus petition into a rule 3.850 motion. See Pinder v. State, 779 So. 2d 309, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). However, as appellant’s convictions and sentences became final nine years before he filed his petition, such a motion would be denied as both successive and untimely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b), (f). Therefore, the trial c…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Pinder, 375 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1979)
- Ervin McCRAY v. State, 699 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Rivers, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- Beauford White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1987)
- Pinder v. State, 366 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)