STEVEN LANE SHELTON, 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.
Shelton appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his 1995 habitual violent felony offender sentence. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court had incorrectly transferred the petition to the wrong circuit and had not reached the merits of Shelton's claim that he lacked the requisite prior convictions for the enhanced sentence.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court lacked jurisdiction and failed to rule on the merits. The court with jurisdiction is the circuit where the original conviction and sentence were imposed (Miami-Dade/Eleventh Circuit), not where the petitioner is currently incarcerated. The case is remanded for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court to determine whether Shelton had the requisite prior convictions for the habitual violent felony offender enhancement.
[1] A court has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the legality of a conviction or sentence only in the court where the conviction and sentence were originally imposed.
[2] A petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of a sentence must be filed in the circuit court that originally imposed the 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 intelligence“the only court that has jurisdiction to hear a challenge as to the legality of a conviction or sentence is the court where he was convicted and sentenced”
Establishes the controlling jurisdictional rule that determines which circuit court must hear habeas petitions challenging original sentences.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1995, Shelton was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to twenty years with a mandatory minimum of ten years as …
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 Legality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Steven Lane Shelton (“Shelton”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied based on the trial court’s conclusion that the petition had been previously ruled on and transferred to the Nineteenth Circuit. We reverse. Although the record reflects that the Miami-Dade circuit court did transfer Shelton’s petition to the Nineteenth Circuit, believing jurisdiction was where Shelton was incarcerated, the Nineteenth Circuit correctly determined that because Shelton was challenging the sentence originally imposed in Miami-Dade County, not the propriety of the revocation of his conditional release, jurisdiction lies in the Eleventh Circuit. See Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So.2d 889, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that the only court that has jurisdiction to hear a challenge as to the legality of a conviction or sentence is the court where he was convicted and sentenced). Thus, the Nineteenth Circuit transferred the petition back to Miami-Dade County. Because the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court has not ruled on the merits of Shelton’s claim, and we are unable, based on the incomplete record provided, to resolve the claim, we reverse and remand for a determination by the trial court.
In 1995, Shelton was tried and convicted for the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a second degree felony, in violation of section 790.23(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Based on the State’s notice to seek an enhanced sentence, and the subsequent sentencing hearing where Shelton’s prior convictions were considered by the trial court, Shelton was sentenced to twenty years of incarceration, with a minimum mandatory sentence of ten years as a habitual violent felony offender pursuant to section 775.084(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.1 Shelton v. State, 706 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
On April 1, 2008, Shelton was released from prison on conditional release. After he violated the conditions of his release, Shelton was rearrested and incarcerated to complete the original sentence imposed in 1995. Thereafter, Shelton filed the instant *871petition challenging the legality of his original habitual violent felony offender sentence. The trial judge assigned to the division that imposed the sentence incorrectly transferred the petition to the Nineteenth Circuit, where Shelton was incarcerated. When the Nineteenth Circuit transferred the petition back to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, it was assigned to the current judge presiding over that division.
Shelton claims his sentence and continued- incarceration are illegal because he lacked the requisite felony convictions to enable the trial court to impose a habitual violent felony offender sentence. Because the record provided to this Court does not conclusively refute Shelton’s claim, we remand the trial court to rule on the petition.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Shelton v. State, 706 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Palacios v. State, 706 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)