RUBIN GRIFFIN, A/K/A RUBEN LEE GRIFFIN, A/K/A RUBIN LEE GRIFFIN, 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.
Rubin Griffin sought a writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel and requesting reversal of his convictions and immediate release. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that habeas corpus is an improper vehicle for challenging the merits of a conviction and that such claims must be addressed through direct appeal or timely rule 3.850 postconviction motions.
A petition for habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle to address the merits of an underlying conviction or the performance of trial counsel. Claims of ineffective assistance must be raised during direct appeal (if apparent on the face of the record) or in a timely filed rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief.
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is an improper vehicle to address the merits of an underlying conviction or the performance of trial counsel.
[2] Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal unless the error is apparent on the face of the record.
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 is, however, the improper vehicle to address the merits of an underlying conviction and the performance of trial counsel.”
Establishes the core holding that habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge conviction merits or trial counsel performance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGriffin was convicted of burglary of an occupied dwelling, grand theft auto, and resisting an officer without violence, and sentenced to thirty years …
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
Rubin Griffin, a/k/a Ruben Lee Griffin, a/k/a Rubin Lee Griffin (“Griffin”), seeks a writ of habeas corpus, requesting that this Court reverse his convictions and order his immediate release from custody. In doing so, Griffin urges this Court to “brush aside formal technicalities” in order to grant him the relief he seeks. We decline the invitation and deny the petition.
Griffin’s convictions for burglary of an occupied dwelling, grand theft auto, and resisting an officer without violence, and his thirty-year sentence as an habitual felony offender, were affirmed on appeal by this Court on May 8, 1996. Griffin v. State, 674 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (table). Since his direct appeal, Griffin has filed: (1) a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by this Court on November 12, 1998, Griffin v. State, 721 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (table); (2) a petition for a writ of mandamus, which was denied by this Court on October 19, 2007, Griffin v. State, 967 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); (3) a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by this Court on December 5, 2007, Griffin v. State, No. 3D07-2614, 972 So. 2d 190, 2007 WL 4249865 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 5, 2007) (unpublished); and (4) the instant petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
In the instant petition, Griffin claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Habeas corpus is, however, the improper vehicle to address the merits of an underlying conviction and the performance of trial counsel. The proper vehicle to address Griffin’s claim was either during his direct appeal, see Forget v. State, 782 So. 2d 410, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the error is apparent on the face of the record), or in a timely filed rule 3.850 motion for postcon-viction relief. A petition for habeas corpus cannot substitute for a rule 3.850 motion, see Nixon v. State, 691 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), nor may it be used to circumvent a rule 3.850 motion barred by the two-year limitations period or the proscription against successive motions. See Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla.1990).
It would appear that Griffin is well-aware of his inability to file a legally sufficient motion under rule 3.850, which is why he has filed the instant petition and has urged us to dispense with the “formal technicalities.”
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Micah Louis Nelson v. State, 43 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 2010)…d that the claim was not yet ripe and was being raised only for preservation purposes). Nelson’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective is denied because ineffective assistance of trial counsel is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Griffin v. State, 976 So. 2d 107, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Habeas corpus is ... the improper vehicle to address ... the performance of trial counsel.”). Finally, Nelson’s claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim of cumulative effect of multiple erro…
-
Gipson v. State, 983 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (imposing a two-year time limit to file a motion for postconviction relief after the judgment and sentence become final in a non-capital case); Griffin v. State, 976 So. 2d 107, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (noting that “[a] petition for habeas corpus cannot substitute for a rule 3.850 motion, nor may it be used to, circumvent a rule 3.850 motion barred by the two-year limitations [*679] period or the proscription against succes…
-
Comesanas v. State, 246 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1990)
- Alain L. Forget v. State, 782 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Nixon v. State, 691 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Rubin Lee Griffin v. State, 721 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)