DANNY BENITEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, JR., DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of habeas corpus, finding the petitioner's claims meritless after reviewing the trial record and a prior appellate decision affirming the conviction. The court relied on the appellate court's decision to deny relief.
No, the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because his petition is devoid of merit, as supported by the prior appellate decision affirming his conviction.
“It is now apparent from the return and the exhibits that the petition is totally devoid of merit.”
Establishes the court's finding after reviewing the case materials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Danny Benitez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his conviction should be set aside. The respondent filed a return with…
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.
We accorded prima facie verity to the allegations óf the un-sworn petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The respondent’s return has been filed and we now consider the matter on the petition and the return supplemented by photostatic exhibits re-*788fleeting aspects of the trial proceeding essential to a determination of the cause.
It is now apparent from the return and the exhibits that the petition is totally devoid of merit. We deem our conclusion to be supported by the decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the conviction which the petitioner now asks us to set aside. See Benitez v. State, Fla.App., 113 So.2d 410.
The writ is discharged and the petitioner is remanded to the custody of the respondent.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.