DAVID BRINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 Eleventh Judicial Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider Brinson's habeas petition challenging his sentence, requiring him to seek relief in the Sixth Judicial Circuit.
[1] A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised attack the validity of the judgment or sentence, rather than th…
[2] Only the court in which a defendant was convicted and sentenced has jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a judgment or sentence.
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 intelligenceBrinson was convicted in the Sixth Judicial Circuit and sentenced. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, cla…
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 Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
LAGOA, J.
David Brinson (“Brinson”) appeals a final order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because we find that the Eleventh Judicial Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim raised in Brin-son’s habeas petition, we affirm the denial without prejudice for Brinson to seek appropriate relief in the Sixth Judicial Circuit.
In 2001, Brinson was convicted of robbery and sentenced to thirty years as a violent career criminal offender in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County. He subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, claiming an illegal sentence.1 The circuit court denied the petition and this appeal ensued.
As this Court explained in Broom v. State, 907 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005):
The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration, but not when the claims attack the validity of the judgment or sentence. Only the court in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced has jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a judgment or sentence, and such an attack must be brought pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850, not by petition for writ of habeas corpus.
(citations omitted).
Because Brinson challenges his sentence and not the conditions of his imprisonment, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice. Post-conviction challenges must be pursued in the circuit court where the conviction was obtained. Brinson may, therefore, challenge his conviction or sentence by filing a motion under Rule 3.800 or Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, where Brinson was convicted and sentenced. See Johnson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Affirmed without prejudice.
. In his petition, Brinson argues that an alleged battery on a corrections officer is not a proper qualifying offense for sentencing as a violent career criminal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stokes v. State, 3 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ial Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim raised in Stokes’ habeas petition, we affirm the denial without prejudice for Stokes to seek appropriate relief in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit. As this Court explained in Brinson v. State, 988 So. 2d 665, 665-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting Broom v. State, 907 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)) (citations omitted): The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corp…
-
Fidel Perez Goni v. State, 141 So. 3d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Stokes v. State, 3 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Brinson v. State, 988 So. 2d 665, 665-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).…
-
Taylor v. Dep't OF Corr. & State of Fla., 230 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED, -without prejudice to Taylor seeking relief in Bay County. See Stokes v. State, 3 So. 3d 425, 425-26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Brinson v. State, 988 So. 2d 665, 665-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)). ORFINGER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ„ concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broom v. State, 907 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Jahzwah Johnson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)