ANTHONY R. MARTIN, 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.
Anthony Martin petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to reinstate two criminal appeals that were dismissed for failure to pay filing fees after his indigency claim was denied. The court rejected his petition, holding that habeas corpus is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge dismissals for nonpayment of fees and that no appellate duty exists to hold a second indigency hearing before dismissal.
The court held that habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy to reinstate dismissed appeals and that appellate courts have no duty to hold a second hearing on indigent status before dismissing an appeal for nonpayment of filing fees. The petition was dismissed, and the prior dismissals of the criminal appeals were upheld.
[1] A writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to obtain additional appeals on issues previously raised in a prior appeal.
[2] A writ of coram nobis is not available to a defendant who is in custody.
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“This is not a ground for habeas relief, as the writ is not to be used to obtain additional appeals on issues raised in a prior appeal.”
Establishes that habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge dismissals of prior appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court denied Martin's request for indigent status in two criminal cases. The Fourth District affirmed the denial in a written opinion and or…
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 Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This petition seeks a writ of habeas corpus requesting this court to reinstate two criminal appeals which we dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. In those two cases, petitioner had sought indigent status, which the trial court denied. This court, in a written opinion, affirmed the denial. See Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The court then ordered the payment of the filing fee. Our records reflect that petitioner sought emergency relief from the supreme court, but that petition was also dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. Petitioner never paid the filing fee in this court, and the appeals were dismissed.
Petitioner now claims that we should reinstate his appeals because eight months have passed between the trial court’s determination that he was not indigent for purposes of appeal and our actual dismissal of the cases.1 He claims that the court should have ordered another hearing on his indigent status before dismissing for nonpayment. This is not a ground for habeas relief, as the writ is not to be used to obtain additional appeals on issues raised in a prior appeal. See Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla.1990). Alternatively, he suggests that coram nobis might be available, but that relief is not available where the defendant is in custody. See Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla.1999). If we treat the case as a petition for belated appeal, it is barred by the two year time limit in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4).
However, even if we were to consider the merits, petitioner has cited no case or rule that requires an appellate court to hold a second hearing to determine an appellant’s indigent status before dismissing an appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. While petitioner alleges that the court has an independent duty to ascertain the indigent status of petitioner’s status prior to dismissing the appeal, no such duty exists. Petitioner adds that his bankruptcy filing should have made him indigent as a matter of law. This issue, however, was addressed in our prior opinion.
The petition is dismissed.
WARNER, C.J., POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . The delay was due to petitioner's filing in the supreme court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 799 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…rm the trial court’s order-on other grounds. Because it appears Walker is in custody on the conviction he seeks to collaterally attack, he is not entitled to coram nobis relief. See Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1989); Martin v. State, 789 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA June 20, 2001) (stating that coram nobis is not available to persons in custody). Therefore, he is not entitled to avail himself of the two-year time frame established in Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999). Affirmed. STRINGER…
Authorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1990)
- Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)