ERIC TANNEHILL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that habeas corpus is not an available substitute for post-conviction relief and affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition.
Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, raising several claims related to his habitual offender sentence. The trial court denied the petitio…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
[*356] PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. “[T]he remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P.” Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), quoting Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Though we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s claims, we briefly note the following. Successive motions seeking the same relief are not authorized under either rule 3.850 or rule 3.800. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(f); Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (confirming that successive review of issues raised in 3.800 motions is not authorized). To this end, we find that Appellant’s claim that he was not provided proper notice of intent to habitualize has been raised, and rejected, previously.
Moreover, we find that the claim was not timely raised herein. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b); Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (failure to advise of intent to habitualize must be raised in a rule 3.850 motion).
Additionally, we find that Appellant’s second and third claims, that his habitual offender sentence is an unlawful departure sentence that cannot be imposed without written reasons, are meritless. See Viera v. State, 833 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (confirming that habitual offender sentences are not subject to sentencing guidelines and thus are not departure sentences that must be accompanied by written reasons).
We also advise Appellant that additional, repetitive, non-meritorious post-conviction motions, writs, and appeals may lead to forfeiture of all or part of his accumulated gain time. See § 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003); Green v. State, 830 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 12 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…o. 2d 1155 (Fla.2003). We remind the appellant that repetitive motions are not authorized under Rule 3.800 for claims that have been previously adjudicated and “may lead to forfeiture of all or part of his accumulated gain time.” Tannehill v. State, 843 So. 2d 355, 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Affirmed.…
-
Owens v. State, 971 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(f); Tannehill v. State, 843 So. 2d 355, 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).…
-
Cosme Valdez v. State, 994 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…subsequent cause of action not only of claims raised, but also claims that could have been raised); Davis v. State, 589 So. 2d 896, 898 (Fla.l991)(holding that “[cjlaims that have been previously raised are procedurally barred”); Tannehill v. State, 843 So. 2d 355, 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(“Successive motions seeking the same relief are not authorized under either rule 3.850 or rule 3.800.”). Valdez entered into his pleas, and he was sentenced on October 2, 2001. On November 21, 2002, Valdez filed a rule 3.850…
Authorities Cited
- Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Earnest James Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Green v. State, 830 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Saldane v. State, 833 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Viera v. State, 833 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)