NANCY A. MOORE, 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.
Moore petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for relief from her appointed counsel, claiming he lied in court and failed to obtain handwriting comparison evidence. The Supreme Court transferred the petition to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which denied the writ of habeas corpus, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for challenging the adequacy of appointed counsel representation.
The court held that habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy for Moore's complaints because: (1) habeas corpus is limited to determining the legality of restraint, not the sufficiency of evidence or quality of representation; (2) Moore did not claim she was being illegally detained; and (3) other adequate remedies are available, including direct appeal of trial court denial of motions to discharge appointed counsel.
[1] A writ of habeas corpus is generally used to determine the legality of a person's detention, not the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
[2] Habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy when another available and adequate remedy exists.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The essence of a traditional common law habeas corpus proceeding is to determine the legality of the restraint under which a person is being held, not to determine the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Establishes the limited scope of habeas corpus relief and why it is not available for challenges to counsel representation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore submitted a letter to the Florida Supreme Court requesting relief or assistance in replacing her public defender. She alleged that her appointed…
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 Pro Se Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, W„ J.
Moore submitted. a letter to the Florida Supreme Court, asking that it grant her relief or assistance in replacing her public defender with other defense counsel. She claims her appointed counsel has lied in court to two trial judges about how he has conducted her representation, and he has not obtained a hand-writing comparison as part of her defense (a step which was directed by a circuit judge). The Florida Supreme Court elected to treat Moore’s letter as a petition for habe-as corpus, and transferred it to this court for disposition.
We can discover no basis in Moore’s letter for issuing an extraordinary writ, nor specifically a writ of habeas corpus. The essence of a traditional common law habeas corpus proceeding is to determine the legality of the restraint under which a person is being held, not to determine the sufficiency of the evidence. Kelly v. State, 92 So. 2d 172, 175 (Fla.1956); Kennedy v. Wainwright, 483 So. 2d 424, 425-26 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 890, 107 S.Ct. 291, 93 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Moore does not declare she is being illegally detained. Nor is habeas corpus appropriate where there is another available and adequate remedy. Walt v. Walt, 574 So. 2d 205, 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
A trial court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s request to discharge appointed counsel and appoint other counsel is not ordinarily immediately reviewable. Boudreau v. Carlisle, 549 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), cert. denied, 557 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1990); Glispy v. Wild, 591 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (prohibition denied). However, failure of a trial court to consider a criminal defendant’s pro se motion to do so, or failure to grant the motion after due consideration, are both issues which can be raised on direct appeal. See Sylvester v. State, 766 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Lewis v. State, 766 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
In this case, it is not clear that Moore has filed a motion in the trial court seeking to have the court discharge her appointed counsel, and in connection therewith, that she has proffered evidence justifying her motion. Our denial of this writ is without prejudice to Moore to pursue such actions.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus DENIED.
COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kennedy v. Louie L. Wainwright, 483 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1986)
- Walt v. Walt, 574 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Kelly v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Frank K. Leonard & R. R. Russell, 92 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1956)
- Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal. v. Ponce, 479 U.S. 890 (U.S. 1986)
- Fleming v. Moore, 479 U.S. 890 (U.S. 1986)
- Frazier Lewis v. State, 766 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Boudreau v. The Honorable James T. Carlisle, 549 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Sylvester v. State, 766 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Glispy v. Honorable Joe Wild, 591 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- State v. Pratt, 591 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)