RAMON ARMAS BORROTO, JR., 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 court affirmed dismissal of a habeas corpus petition because it raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that must be pursued through Rule 3.850 motions, not habeas proceedings, and included procedurally barred issues that should have been raised on direct appeal.
A habeas corpus petition cannot be used to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel or collateral counsel, which must be pursued through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motions, nor can it raise issues procedurally barred from direct appeal.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel does not provide a valid basis for habeas corpus relief.
[2] Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motions, not habeas petitions.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“a claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel does not provide a valid basis for [habeas] relief”
Court citing Hicks v. State for the proposition that collateral counsel ineffectiveness is not cognizable in habeas proceedings
Borroto filed a habeas corpus petition claiming ineffective assistance of collateral counsel regarding a Rule 3.850 motion, ineffective assistance 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 Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Ramon Armas Borroto, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court correctly ruled that Borroto’s petition did not allege a proper basis for habeas relief. First, Borroto claimed several instances of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel relating to a motion filed on Borroto’s behalf pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. However, “a claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel does not provide a valid basis for [habeas] relief.” Hicks v. State, 979 So.2d 360, 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987)). Second, Borroto included a number of issues relating to his underlying conviction that should have been raised, if at all, on direct appeal — and are therefore procedurally barred from being used to collaterally attack his conviction. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 383 So.2d 770, 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Finally, Borroto alleges a number of instances of ineffective assistance of his original trial counsel, which cannot be raised by habeas petition. See Richardson v. State, 918 So.2d 999, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Since adoption of rule 3.850 and its predecessor, the courts have consistently held that it is inappropriate to collaterally attack a conviction through the process of habeas proceedings because such claims are cognizable under the rule.”). “[W]hen such an improper habeas attack has been lodged, the proper disposition is dismissal.” Sutton v. State, 963 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987)
- Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Emory Harvey v. State, 383 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Hicks v. State, 979 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Sutton v. State, 963 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Tex. Auto Mart, Inc. v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys. Inc., 979 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)