THOMAS M. MORTIMER, PETITIONER,
v.
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.
Thomas Mortimer sought habeas corpus relief challenging Florida's sexual offender registration and reporting statutes on single-subject constitutional grounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition, holding that habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for constitutional challenges to statutes when the petitioner has other adequate legal remedies available.
Habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy for Mortimer's single-subject constitutional challenge to the sexual offender registration statutes because the challenge does not fall within the enumerated areas for which habeas corpus relief remains viable, Mortimer is not in custody, and he has other adequate legal remedies available.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is properly dismissed when the petitioner has not first raised the issue in the trial court.
[2] Habeas corpus is not available to challenge the constitutionality of a statute when the petitioner is not in custody and has other adequate legal remedies.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Habeas corpus does not lie where the petitioner has other adequate remedies at law.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that habeas corpus is not available when other legal remedies exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMortimer challenged Chapters 97-299 and 98-81 of the Laws of Florida, which establish registration and reporting requirements for sexual offenders. Mo…
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 Adequacy Of Legal Remedy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and argues that Chapters 97-299 and 98-81 of the Laws of Florida, establishing registration and reporting requirements for sexual offenders, violate the single-subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. See § 943.0435, Fla. Stat. (1998) (providing the sexual offender registration requirements). We dismiss the petition because the petitioner should first raise this issue in the trial court.
In Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889, 892 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court enumerated the areas for which the remedy of habeas corpus remains viable absent a collateral attack on a judgment and sentence pursuant to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The remedy is available: (1) to attack computations of gain time and other determinations of the parole and probation commission;
(2) to test pretrial detention and the denial of pretrial bond or excessive pretrial bond;
(3) to determine the right to a delayed appeal;
(4) to challenge extradition; and
(5) to challenge the effectiveness of appellate counsel in previous appeal.
Id. at 892. Petitioner’s single-subject attack on the statutory registration and reporting requirements for sexual offenders does not fit within the identified uses for habeas corpus relief.
We acknowledge that our supreme court has reviewed a single-subject challenge in an original habeas corpus proceeding. See Comer v. Moore, 817 So. 2d 784 (Fla.2002). In Comer, however, the petitioner was in custody and sought additional gain time. Comer argued that the Stop Turning Out Prisoner’s Act, which required defendants to serve at least 85% of their sentence, violated the single-subject requirement, and that he was therefore entitled to additional gain time. Because the petition concerned the computation of gain time, it fell within one of the enumerated areas for habeas corpus relief. See Leichtman, 674 So. 2d at 892.
In this case, Mortimer is not in custody. He has not shown that he is being illegally restrained of his liberty or that he has no other adequate legal remedy. See Anglin v. Mayo, 88 So. 2d 918 (Fla.1956) (explaining that purpose of ha-beas corpus is to test the legality of a restraint upon liberty). Habeas corpus does not lie where the petitioner has other adequate remedies at law. Powell v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 741 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Moore v. State, 784 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
For these reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
POLEN, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…petitioner who is not in custody is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.”); Starr v. Smith, 77 So. 2d 834, 834 (Fla. 1955) (quashing writ of habeas corpus because defendant was not in custody when relief was granted); see also Mortimer v. State, 922 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to show illegal restraint of liberty or no other adequate legal remedy); Anglin v. Mayo, 88 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 1956) (explaining purpose of habeas…
Authorities Cited
- Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hernandez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Anglin v. Mayo, 88 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1956)
- Comer v. Moore, 817 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2002)
- Joyanna Marks Layton and Jacquelin N. Fusco v. White, 784 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Powell v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr. & Fla. Parole Comm'n, 741 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)