MICHAEL LAWRENCE CASSIDY, 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.
In this habeas corpus appeal, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Cassidy's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for collateral postconviction relief available through Rule 3.850 motions. The court preserved Cassidy's right to pursue relief through the proper Rule 3.850 procedure regarding count 3 of his judgment.
Habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain collateral postconviction relief that is available through Rule 3.850 proceedings in the sentencing court. The trial court properly denied the habeas corpus petition, but Cassidy may pursue his claims regarding count 3 through a timely and facially sufficient Rule 3.850 motion filed before the February 7, 2016 deadline.
[1] Habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain postconviction relief available in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.
[2] A motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must comply with the rule's content and certification requirements.
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 remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.”
Establishes the core legal principle that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for Rule 3.850 collateral relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCassidy was convicted and sentenced. He previously appealed directly and that appeal was affirmed on February 7, 2014, when mandate issued. Cassidy th…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
We previously affirmed Appellant’s judgment and sentence on his direct appeal. Cassidy v. State, 130 So.3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (table). We now affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1245 (Fla.2004) (“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.”). This affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant’s seeking relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 on his claims regarding count 3 of his judgment and sentence. See Thomas v. State, 935 So.2d 91, 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
We do not pass upon the ■ viability or merits of Appellant’s claims, which is for the trial court’s determination if the claims are properly presented. Any motion filed under Rule 3.850 must comply with the content and certification requirements of the rule. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b), (b)(1), (c), (h), (n). In most circumstances, it must be filed '-within two years after issuance of mandate. Breland v. State, 58 So.3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (two-year time limit under Rule 3.850 commences upon appellate court’s issuance of mandate). In Appellant’s direct appeal, mandate issued on February 7, 2014; therefore, the two years within which to file a motion under Rule 3.850 will expire on February 7, 2016. Court records indicate that Appellant filed an amended motion under Rule 3.850 after filing the present habeas petition, the contents of which are not before this Court. If not already asserted in the récent amended motions under Rule 3.850, Appellant may assert his claims regarding count 3 in a timely and facially sufficient motion that complies with Rule 3.850.
WOLF and KELSEY, 33., concur.
THOMAS, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Carlile Breland v. State, 58 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Thomas v. State, 935 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)