MACK DEWAYNE BARNES, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES V. CROSBY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, even though the trial court lacked jurisdiction, because the petition was an improper substitute for a postconviction motion.
Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing his probation was improperly revoked based on a condition not included in the original terms. The tr…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Mack Dewayne Barnes appeals an order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Although the trial court incorrectly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition, we affirm the dismissal on a different ground.
Barnes argued in his petition that the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court erroneously accepted his plea and revoked his probation based upon his failure to take polygraph examinations as part of his sexual abuse counseling when the taking of polygraph examinations was not a condition of his probation. Because Barnes was attacking the validity of the proceedings in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, jurisdiction to entertain the petition lay with that court. See Carmen v. State, 300 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Collins v. State, 859 So. 2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Nevertheless, Barnes is not entitled to ha-beas relief.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for an appropriate postconviction motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(h); Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004); Pinder v. State, 779 So. 2d 309, 309-10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Barnes has not demonstrated that such a motion would have been inadequate or ineffective to address his claim, and his petition was not filed within the time period allowed for filing a rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(h). Thus, we cannot fault the circuit court for not treating the petition as a rule 3.850 motion. See Pinder, 779 So. 2d at 310. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition, although on a different ground than the one relied on by the trial court.
Affirmed.
FULMER, C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…eging ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the petition must be filed in court where original sentence imposed, not where defendant is incarcerated); Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)); see also Barnes v. Crosby, 909 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Because Barnes was attacking the validity of the proceedings in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, jurisdiction to entertain the petition lay with that court”). The essence of Richardson’s claim is that he was mentally inco…
-
McCRAY v. State, 104 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…oceeding. Depending on the contents of this petition, the trial court should have either treated it as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 or dismissed it without prejudice to file such a motion. See Barnes v. Crosby, 909 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not a substitute for a proper post-conviction motion); Houghtaling v. State, 670 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (explaining that a petition for writ of habeas corpus that sa…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Collins v. State, 859 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Pinder v. State, 779 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Carmen v. State, 300 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)