PRADEL LUCAS, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal transferred a habeas corpus appeal back to the Second District because it lacked jurisdiction to review orders from the Tenth Judicial Circuit trial court, regardless of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim involved.
A district court of appeal lacks jurisdiction to review trial court orders from a judicial circuit outside its territorial jurisdiction, even when the underlying claim involves ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] A district court of appeal lacks jurisdiction to review orders of trial courts located in judicial circuits outside its territorial jurisdiction, regardless of whether th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePradel Lucas petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Tenth Circuit Court based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court dismi…
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 Collateral Attack On Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
ON THE COURT’S ORDER OF TRANSFER PURSUANT TO RULE 9.040
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Tenth Circuit Court dismissing or denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner’s ground for requesting ha-beas corpus amounted to a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel. The trial court dismissed the writ, concluding both that such relief must be brought in the sentenc ing court and that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to collaterally attack a conviction.
Petitioner appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal. After petitioner filed the initial brief, the state filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that appellant’s petition was essentially an ineffective assistance of counsel claim which should have been filed in the Seventeenth Circuit, the original sentencing court. The Second District Court of Appeal denied the motion to dismiss but transferred the case to this court. We now transfer the case back to the Second District Court of Appeal. This court has no jurisdiction to review orders entered by the trial courts of the Tenth Judicial Circuit. Compare § 35.03, Fla. Stat. (2000), with § 35.042, Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Lightbourn, 201 So. 2d 568, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). While it is true that an ineffectiveness claim must be brought before the sentencing court, that does not give this court jurisdiction to review an order of the Tenth Circuit.
POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Coral Gables v. Lightbourn, 201 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)