LAWRENCE CORNER, 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.
Lawrence Corner appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2001 convictions for kidnapping and sexual battery. The court affirmed the denial, finding that Corner was attempting to use habeas corpus as a disguised rule 3.850 motion and issued an order to show cause regarding further filings.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Corner's motion to file a habeas corpus petition, finding that Corner was attempting to use habeas corpus as a disguised rule 3.850 motion, which is not permitted. The court determined the motion was legally insufficient, time-barred, successive, and conclusively refuted by the record.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to substitute for an appropriate motion for post-conviction relief.
[2] A trial court may treat a motion to request permission to file a habeas corpus petition as a rule 3.850 motion if it is used as a disguised attempt to circumvent post-con…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot substitute for an appropriate motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that habeas corpus petitions cannot be used to circumvent rule 3.850 requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2001, Lawrence Corner was convicted of kidnapping and sexual battery, receiving a life sentence for kidnapping and fifteen years for sexual battery…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Lawrence Corner appeals a denial by the trial court ,of his motion to request permission to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2001, Corner was convicted of kidnapping and sexual battery. He was sentenced to life in prison for the kidnapping charge and fifteen years for the sexual battery charge. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentencing in Corner v. State, 868 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Including both the direct appeal and the current appeal, Corner has filed in this Court fourteen post-conviction petitions or appeals.1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s ruling and issue an order to show cause.
Underlying Corner’s current appeal is Corner’s allegation that he was not given a proper Miranda warning at the time of his arrest. This issue was raised in a motion to suppress and heard in an evidentiary hearing in November of 2000. The trial court denied Corner’s motion to suppress and Corner did not raise this issue on direct appeal. Corner, however, raised this issue fruitlessly in an earlier post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. Corner v. State, 163 So.3d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (Table).
As the trial court points out in its order . on appeal, Corner is attempting to use the habeas corpus petition as . a disguised rule 3.850 motion. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1241 (Fla.2004) (holding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot substitute for an appropriate motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850). By treating Corner’s motion to request permission to file a habeas corpus petition as a rule 3.850 motion, the trial court determined that the motion is “legally insufficient, time-barred, successive, and conclusively refuted by the record.”2 We agree.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Corner is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days from the date of this opinion, why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his criminal convictions and sentencing in circuit court case number F99-40037.
If Corner does not demonstrate good cause, any such further and unauthorized filings by Corner will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
Affirmed. Order to show cause issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chestel Thorson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Chestel Thorson v. State, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
La-Casse v. Inch (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Corner v. State, 868 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Curry v. State, 913 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Corner v. State, 913 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Johnson v. State, 917 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)