LESTER GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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 held that while the trial court erred in denying the habeas petition based on venue, the denial is affirmed because the petition was successive and improperly used to relitigate issues already raised or that could have been raised.
[1] A circuit court in the county of incarceration has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus concerning issues regarding incarceration, but not claims…
[2] Only the court in which a defendant was convicted and sentenced has jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a judgment or sentence, which must be brought pursuant…
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 intelligenceLester Gray appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The trial court denied the petition, believing it should have been filed in the cou…
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 Petition For Extraordinary Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
Lester Gray appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.
Gray, who was convicted in the Circuit Court of Orange County, is currently incarcerated in Taylor County. The trial court incorrectly denied Gray’s petition, concluding that it should have been filed in Taylor County. As the Third District explained more than ten years ago 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.
(Internal citations omitted). Because the petition collaterally attacks the validity of Gray’s conviction and sentence, Orange County had jurisdiction to review the ha-beas petition.
Notwithstanding, we affirm the denial of the habeas petition because the trial judge reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason. Gray has , previously filed several postconviction motions. An extraordinary writ petition is not a second appeal, and cannot be used to litigate pr relitigate issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings. See Denson v. State, 775 So.2d 288, 289 (Fla. 2000). Habeas corpus may not be used to file successive rule *9763.850 motions or to raise issues that would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under that rule. Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1245-46 (Fla. 2004). Any concerns that Gray had regarding his conviction and sentence needed to have been raised in his previous postcon-viction motions.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Broom v. State, 907 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- State v. Hogan, 775 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2000)
- Denson v. State, 775 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2000)