TOMMY L. RANDOLPH
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A speedy trial argument is not a valid ground for habeas corpus relief and must be raised on direct appeal or in a properly filed rule 3.850 motion.
[1] Speedy trial claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings and must instead be raised on direct appeal, if preserved, or in a rule 3.850 motion.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“speedy trial argument not a valid ground for habeas corpus relief; such argument should have been raised on direct appeal, if preserved, or in a properly filed rule 3.850 motion”
Court's citation to Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 2004)
Tommy L. Randolph filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County, challenging h…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
TOMMY L. RANDOLPH, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2024-2641
[April 2, 2025]
Appeal of order denying petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 1978CF000305 A.
Tommy L. Randolph, Lowell, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 2004) (speedy trial argument not a valid ground for habeas corpus relief; such argument should have been raised on direct appeal, if preserved, or in a properly filed rule 3.850 motion).
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * *