JAMAAL A. HAMEEN, A/K/A CHARLES FLOWERS, APPELLANT,
v.
SHERIFF JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, 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.
Jamaal Harneen appeals the summary denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his 2003 guilty plea and sentence. The court affirmed the denial because the petition was legally insufficient, but allowed Harneen to file a properly formatted motion for postconviction relief challenging the involuntary plea within the Rule 3.850 two-year window.
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition because it was legally insufficient and did not conform to Rule 3.850 requirements, but allowed Harneen to file a properly formatted, sworn motion for postconviction relief challenging the involuntary plea before the two-year window expired in mid-September 2005.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is properly denied when it does not set forth a facially sufficient claim for relief.
[2] A claim for a reduced sentence or withdrawal of a plea may be cognizable as a claim for postconviction relief based on an involuntary plea.
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“Harneen did not set forth a facially sufficient claim for habeas corpus relief. In substance, Harneen s claim is for a reduced sentence or for a withdrawal of his 2003 plea.”
Establishes that the petition lacked facial sufficiency and that Harneen's true remedy was a motion to withdraw the plea, not habeas corpus.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarneen entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to two years' community control on August 13, 2003. He subsequently violated the terms of community…
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 Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Jamaal A. Harneen, a/k/a Charles Flowers, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
We affirm the denial order because Harneen did not set forth a facially sufficient claim for habeas corpus relief. In substance, Harneen s claim is for a reduced sentence or for a withdrawal of his 2003 plea. Given the unsworn allegations presented in his petition, we believe Harneen might have a claim for postconviction relief based on an involuntary plea. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(a)(5); Lusunariz v. State, 908 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
The unsworn petition does not conform to the oath requirement of Rule 3.850(c), but it was filed within the timetable established in Rule 3.850(b).
See Lyell v. State, 872 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
According to the petition, Harneen entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to two years’ community control on August 13, 2003 (after which he violated the terms of community control and was sentenced to a term in jail).
Because Harneen apparently did not appeal his judgment and sentence based on the 2003 plea, it became final 30 days later. See id.
Accordingly, his two-year window to challenge that plea under Rule 3.850 will expire in mid-September 2005. See id. Our decision is without prejudice to Hameen’s right to file in the trial court a legally sufficient, timely motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Rule 3.850. See McNeil v. State, 676 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (affirming denial of legally insufficient motion for post-conviction relief, which lacked signature page and was not under oath, without prejudice to defendant’s right to file timely motion complying with “content” requirements of Rule 3.850(c)).
AFFIRMED, without prejudice to file an amended, legally sufficient motion for postconviction relief.
BENTON, J., concurs; and PADOYANO, J., concurs in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 676 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Lyell v. State, 872 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Lusunariz v. State, 908 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)