ANTHONY W. BROOM, 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 Broom appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition by the Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The Third District reversed, holding that the Miami-Dade court lacked jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on his conviction and sentence, which must be brought in the county where he was convicted (Pinellas County) under the proper procedural rules.
No. The Miami-Dade Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction. Only the Pinellas County Court, where Broom was convicted and sentenced, has jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on the judgment or sentence, and such attacks must be brought pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850, not by habeas corpus petition.
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed in the circuit court of the county where the prisoner is detained.
[2] A petition that collaterally attacks a judgment or sentence should be treated as a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration, but not when the claims attack the validity of the judgment or sentence.”
Establishes the threshold jurisdictional rule distinguishing habeas corpus petitions based on whether they challenge detention or attack the judgment itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBroom entered a plea of nolo contendere to driving under the influence in Pinellas County in 1996 while on probation. His probation was revoked in 199…
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 Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
Anthony W. Broom appeals a final order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
On December 9, 1996, in the county court of Pinellas County, Florida, the defendant, who was on probation for a previous crime, entered a plea of nolo contendré to the offense of driving under the influence of prescription medicine. As a result, his probation was revoked on March 26, 1997, and he was imprisoned in Miami-Dade County. On February 2, 1998, and on April 1, 1998, the defendant filed motions for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which were denied by the trial court on April 17,1998 and November 2,1998.
On September 7, 1999, the defendant was granted a belated appeal by the Second District Court of Appeal. However, on March 21, 2000, the Second District transferred the case to the Appellate Division of the Pinellas County Circuit Court. According to the defendant, he then “became frustrated” and chose not to pursue the appeal. Instead, on May 24, 2001, the defendant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which was denied on May 1, 2002.
On September 9, 2002, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court which was transferred to the Miami-Dade Circuit Court on May 21, 2003. On August 7, 2003, the Miami-Dade Circuit Court entered an order denying the petition on the merits. The defendant now appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons expressed below, we find that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to consider the claims raised in the defendant’s petition.
The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration, but not when the claims attack the validity of the judgment or sentence. Murray v. Regier, 872 So. 2d 217, 223-24 (Fla.2002)(beeause petition for writ of habeas corpus raised issues regarding petitioner’s detention, the proper court to rule on the petition was the court where petitioner was being detained); Calloway v. State, 699 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(explaining that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review the legality of a conviction in another circuit); Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(holding that a court from one county does not have jurisdiction to hear a petition collaterally attacking a judgment and sentence from another county.) Only the court in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced has jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a judgment or sentence, and such an attack must be brought pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850, not by petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004); Borinstein v. State, 893 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Therefore, the Miami-Dade Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the collateral attacks raised in the defendant’s petition. Only the Pinellas County Court, where the defendant was convicted and sentenced, has jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s collateral attacks, which must be brought pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850.
Accordingly, we quash the order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus, without prejudice to the defendant to seek relief pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850 in Pinellas County.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Kormen Branch v. State, 990 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…trial court dismissed the petition because the relief Branch sought was a collateral attack on the judgment and conviction, and was, therefore, not properly raised in a habeas petition. This appeal ensued. As this Court explained in Broom v. State, 907 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005): The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration, but…
-
Farrell v. State, 62 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…re the prisoner is detained to the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. Under current law, habeas petitions are proper only to address issues regarding a defendant’s incarceration, not the sentence leading to the incarceration. See Broom v. State, 907 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration, b…
-
Kai Uwe Thier v. State, 967 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ourt properly held that, although the petitioner was imprisoned in the county, it had no jurisdiction by habeas corpus to consider the validity of a Broward County conviction, see Johnson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Broom v. State, 907 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), the order of denial below is affirmed. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 26 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)
- Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Murray v. Regier, 872 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2002)
- Calloway v. State, 699 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Borinstein v. State, 893 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)