ADAM JOLLY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2013-01-30
No. 4D11-1812
POLEN, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.
106 So. 3d 508 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s untimely post-conviction motion. A petition for writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for a rule 3.850 motion. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1241 (Fla.2004); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(Z). As to appellant’s claim that the sentencing court believed that it was required to sentence appellant to the statutory maximum once it concluded that he was a habitual felony offender, see Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), appellant fails to show manifest injustice that merits relaxing the pro-eedural bars. Cf. Johnson v. State, 9 So.3d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Prince v. State, 98 So.3d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Affirmed.

POLEN, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Santos v. State, 132 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jolly v. State, 106 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Bray v. State, 75 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). GERBER, LEVINE and FORST, concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw