DONALD WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment and sentence, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to review a judgment from another county.
Donald Williams pleaded no contest to carjacking and was sentenced. He later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his judgment and…
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
Donald Williams timely appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In 2001, Williams entered a no contest plea in Lake County to a charge of carjacking. He was sentenced to thirty years in the Department of Corrections (twenty years suspended on the completion of five years sex offender probation followed by fifteen years probation) and ordered to pay restitution, fines and costs. Williams is currently incarcerated in Sumter County. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Sumter County, in which he raised several claims collaterally challenging the judgment and sentence imposed.
The trial judge correctly found that a petition for habeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment and sentence as Williams has attempted to do. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 has superseded habeas corpus as the only means to raise such issues. Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
The trial judge also correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Lake County plea and sentence. Collins v. State, 859 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Given the procedural and jurisdictional bars to relief, Williams’ petition should have been dismissed. However, as we stated in Richardson, for purposes of judicial economy we should affirm the order denying the petition rather than vacate it and remand to the trial court for entry of an order of dismissal. We again emphasize that when a habeas petition is filed raising inappropriate issues that fall within one of the three categories enumerated in Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004), the appropriate disposition is dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ingram v. State, 964 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Williams v. State, 937 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
-
Earle v. State, 988 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Williams v. State, 937 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). PALMER, C.J., GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, J.J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Collins v. State, 859 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)