ANDRE ROBBINS, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Andre Robbins petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his habitual offender sentence as illegal because it was based on non-sequentially sentenced prior offenses. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition on both procedural grounds and on the merits, holding that habeas corpus is an improper remedy for sentence challenges and that Robbins was procedurally barred from relitigating the same issue he had previously raised.
Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for challenging a sentence; such challenges must be brought as post-conviction motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Additionally, Robbins is procedurally barred from relitigating the same issue previously considered and rejected on the merits. On the merits, Robbins is not entitled to relief because a sentence includes the sanction of probation, and his prior convictions coupled with his violation of probation qualify him for habitual offender sentencing.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for a challenge to a sentence; such claims must first be raised in a post-conviction motion to correct an il…
[2] A habeas corpus petition cannot be used as a substitute for an appropriate post-conviction motion.
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“A petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for an appropriate post-conviction motion.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that sentence challenges must be brought as post-conviction motions under Rule 3.800, not habeas petitions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobbins was serving probation in case number 94-25886 (for lewd assault on a child in 1994) when he was arrested and violated that probation in case n…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Andre Robbins petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Robbins claims that his habitual offender sentence is illegal as it is based on non-sequentially sentenced prior offenses. We dismiss the petition for the following reasons.
First, a habeas petition is not the correct remedy: the claim should first have been brought before the trial court as a post-conviction motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, as Robbins raises a challenge to his sentence rather than to his conviction. A petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for an appropriate post-conviction motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(h); Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004). Second, Robbins has been here before on the very same issue and is procedurally barred from raising it again, this time styled as a habeas petition.1 See Swain v. State, 911 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(While successive 3.800(a) motions are permitted even though the claims could have been raised in previously filed 3.800(a) motions, and there is no time limit for seeking such relief, the law of the case doctrine prevents a litigant from relitigating the same issues previously considered and rejected on the merits and reviewed on appeal.).
On the merits, previous trial courts correctly determined that the petitioner is not entitled to relief because his prior convictions coupled with the current violation of probation qualify him for sentencing as an habitual offender. He was serving the probation portion of his sentence in case number 94-25886 when he was arrested in case number 02-13466B. At his sentencing for the current offense, his priors were listed as (1) sexual battery in 1986 and (2) lewd assault on a child in 1994 (the case in which he violated probation). A sentence includes the sanction of probation. See McCall v. State, 862 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86, 2005 WL 2155200 (Fla. Sept. 8, 2005).
Dismissed.
. See Robbins v. State, 906 So. 2d 1075 (Table)(Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Robbins v. State, 886 So. 2d 235 (Table)(Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Robbins v. State, 874 So. 2d 591 (Table)(Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Robbins v. State, 864 So. 2d 422 (Table)(Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- McCALL v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- State v. Erick Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2005)
- Swain v. State, 911 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)