HENRY WASHINGTON, 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.
A petition for habeas corpus cannot be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment and sentence, as Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is the exclusive remedy. Furthermore, this petition is successive and an abuse of process.
[1] A petition for habeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment and sentence when Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 has superseded habeas c…
[2] A successive petition for post-conviction relief constitutes an abuse of process.
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 intelligenceWashington sought a writ of habeas corpus to collaterally attack his judgment and sentence for burglary, possession of burglary tools, and petit theft…
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 Successive Petitions cases and more on FLexlaw
Washington appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus in which he seeks to collaterally attack his judgment and sentence for burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools and petit theft,1 He was tried on January 20, 2000 and was found guilty on all three charges. We affirm.
The basis for our denial is primarily procedural. A petition for habeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment and sentence because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 has superceded habeas corpus as the only means to raise such issues. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 2004 WL 439879 (Fla. March 11, 2004); Spratling v. State, 851 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
More importantly, the petition is successive and thus an abuse of process. See Spaziano v. State, 545 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1989); Torres v. State, 554 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). After Washington appealed from the criminal judgment and this court affirmed without opinion,2 he filed a motion for post-conviction relief, asserting twenty grounds for finding ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court summarily denied some, conducted an evidentiary hearing on one ground, and denied relief on that ground. He appealed and this court affirmed without opinion.3 In this petition, Washington either restates many of the issues pertaining to ineffective assistance of trial counsel presented in his prior 3.850 proceeding, or grounds which could or should have been addressed in the previous Rule 3.850 motion.
We caution Washington against filing additional successive and improper collateral attacks on this criminal judgment. If he persists, this court may bar him from filing any additional pro se pleadings in this court seeking to collaterally attack the judgment and sentences. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur. . §§ 810.02(1), 810.06, 812.014(1), Fla. Slat. (1999).
. See Washington v. State, 792 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
. Ibid.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…f rule 3.850 and its predecessor, the courts have consistently held that it is inappropriate to collaterally attack a conviction through the process of habeas proceedings because such claims are cognizable under the rule. Baker; Washington v. State, 876 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“A petition for habe-as corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment and sentence because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 has superseded habeas corpus as the only means to raise such issues.”)…
-
Borinstein v. State, 893 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…riminal Procedure 3.850 or 3.800, in the sentencing court — not the court located in the circuit in which the petitioner is being held in custody. We concur with the later reason. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004); Washington v. State, 876 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Collins v. State, 859 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We also caution Borinstein against filing successive petitions and motions seeking to raise this same issue.2 Borinstein previously filed a similar habeas petition in the 19…
-
Potes v. State, 881 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Washington v. State, 876 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). SAWAYA, C.J., PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.…
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
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Spaziano v. State, 545 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1989)
- Spratling v. State, 851 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Torres v. State, 554 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)