ANTHONY EVANS POPE, 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.
Anthony Evans Pope appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition claiming illegal detention beyond his maximum release date. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal because Pope failed to allege or prove exhaustion of administrative remedies, a prerequisite for extraordinary writs, and may refile once administrative remedies are exhausted.
The trial court properly denied the petition without prejudice for being facially insufficient due to Pope's failure to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies, which is a prerequisite to issuance of an extraordinary writ. Pope may refile his petition upon actual exhaustion of all administrative remedies.
[1] A prerequisite to the issuance of an extraordinary writ is the exhaustion of all available administrative remedies.
[2] A petition for an extraordinary writ is facially insufficient if it fails to allege the exhaustion of all administrative remedies.
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“The prerequisite to the issuance of an extraordinary writ is exhaustion of all administrative remedies.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement that exhaustion of administrative remedies must precede filing an extraordinary writ petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePope filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum in trial court alleging he was being illegally detained by the Department …
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Anthony Evans Pope appeals the denial of his Emergency Petition for Writ of Ha-beas Corpus Ad Testificandum. The petition alleges that the appellant is being illegally detained by the Department of Corrections beyond his maximum release date.
When Appellant filed his petition with the trial court, he failed to allege, or prove, that he had exhausted any of the administrative procedures available to him prior to filing the petition. The prerequisite to the issuance of an extraordinary writ is exhaustion of all administrative remedies. See Reed v. Moore, 768 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
The trial court, without addressing the merits, summarily and correctly denied the appellant’s petition, without prejudice, finding the petition facially insufficient for failing to allege the appellant had exhausted all of the administrative remedies. Appellant did not address the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies in his Initial Brief. In his Reply Brief dated December 27, 2004, after the issue was raised by the State of Florida in the Answer Brief, the Appellant informed the court for the first time that, in fact, Appellant had attempted, prior to filing the petition in the trial court, to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Appellant attaches to his Reply Brief, copies of documents which he alleges show that he attempted to exhaust, or did exhaust, his administrative remedies.) The trial court was never informed by Appellant that he did attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Therefore, the trial court was never in a position to determine whether or not the administrative remedies had been exhausted and, if so, to then address the petition on its merits. Once that process is completed, an appeal, if necessary, may be appropriate.
Based on the above, we affirm the trial court’s decision, without prejudice to Pope’s right to file a new petition, upon the exhaustion of all administrative remedies available to him.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Runner O. Santana v. Henry, 12 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the petitioner is entitled to immediate release sets out plausible reasons and a specific factual basis in some detail, the custodian should be required to respond to the petition. To the extent Pope v. State, 898 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), holds to the contrary, we certify conflict. If in this case the petition had not been summarily denied and the trial court had instead ordered the DOC to show cause why Mr. Santana’s petition should not be granted, the DOC might…
-
Henry v. Runner O. Santana, 62 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 2011)…the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Santana v. Henry, 12 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Pope v. State, 898 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The issue presented is whether a court may sua sponte dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which a prisoner is seeking immediate release, based upon the peti…1 / 4
-
Dante v. Ryan, 979 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citing City of Miami Beach v. Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Prop. Owners Ass’n, 216 So. 2d 509, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)). Prior to issuing an extraordinary writ, however, all administrative remedies must be exhausted. See Pope v. State, 898 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Based on the record before us, we find that Dante failed to allege, or prove, that he exhausted the administrative remedies available to him under the Inmate ComplainVGrievance process contained in the Inmate Handbook.1 According…
Authorities Cited
- Pacheco v. State, 768 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Reed v. Moore, 768 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)