CARL BARNES, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition because it failed to state a facially sufficient claim under the relevant rules for postconviction relief.
Carl Barnes appealed the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The lower court found the petition insufficient under Florida Rules of…
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 Correction Of Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carl Barnes appeals an order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petition fails to state a facially sufficient claim for relief pursuant to either Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850or 3.800(a), we affirm.
As the circuit court explained, a petition for habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for an appropriate motion seeking postconviction relief. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Given this, the court “must determine whether appellant’s petition states a facially sufficient claim for relief pursuant to either Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850or 3.800(a).” Id., at 1115.
The court cannot treat Barnes’ habeas corpus petition as a motion filed under rule 3.850because it was not filed within two years of the date his sentence became final. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (Time Limitations). In addition, the petition is facially insufficient as a 3.850 motion because it does not contain much of the information required by the rule. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c) (Contents of Motion).
The petition is also facially insufficient when considered as a 3.800(a) motion. “Rule 3.800(a) is intended to permit the correction only of sentencing errors that are clear from the face of the record, and result in substantive harm to the complainant.” Harris, 789 So. 2d at 1115. Barnes makes no allegation that the sentencing error he complains of is clear from the face of the record.
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Laing, 182 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ngage in sexual conduct with the minor. Therefore, the Indian River Sheriffs Officer did not target appellee as someone “not involved in an existing criminal undertaking in need of detection by law enforcement.” Id. at 397; see also Cline v. State, 958 So. 2d 961, 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“The circumstances, here, differ from those cases where objective entrapment was found. This is not a case where the defendant had no prior criminal history or involvement with diugs.... ”); Mendel v. State, 903 So. 2d 1027…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Barnard v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)