THEODORE N. TURNER, PETITIONER,
v.
L. L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT; THEODORE N. TURNER, 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.
Theodore Turner sought habeas corpus relief and attempted to enforce a court mandate that had allowed him to file an amended motion for relief in his criminal conviction. The trial court denied his amended motion as a successive motion, and Turner sought habeas relief. The appellate court denied the habeas petition but allowed Turner to pursue a direct appeal of the trial court's denial order, which would provide a full remedy.
The trial court's denial of the amended motion does not constitute an enforceable violation of the mandate, and habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy. Instead, Turner should pursue a timely appeal from the March 26th order denying the amended motion, which would provide a full and adequate remedy for his claims.
“the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner”
The trial court's rationale for denying Turner's amended motion for relief as a successive motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTurner had filed an initial motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by this court on F…
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 Motion For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
On February 7, 1964, this court affirmed an order of the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County denying a motion for relief filed by Theodore N. Turner under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, Turner v. State, Fla.App., 161 So.2d 11. The affirmance. of this order was without prejudice to the right of the appellant to file in the lower court a proper and sufficient motion and to be afforded an opportunity to establish, if he could, the facts and circumstances surrounding his conviction and sentence upon which he relies as being sufficient to require the vacation of his sentence.
Subsequently the appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that, in accordance with the opinion of this court, he filed in the trial court an amended motion for relief which was, on March 26, 1964, denied on the ground that “the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”
This Petition was considered as a motion to enforce the Mandate of this court issued on March 10, 1964, in the case of Turner v. State, Fla.App., 161 So.2d 11, and the Attorney General was directed to file a response to the motion.
Issue having been joined upon the appellant’s motion to enforce mandate, the response thereto and a partial record of proceedings m the lower court, and it appearing that the matters presented could and should most appropriately be considered upon appeal from the March 26th order, which appeal would afford appellant a full and adequate remedy, it is therefore
Ordered and adjudged that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and that the Petition, considered as a motion to enforce mandate, be denied, all without prejudice to appellant’s right to file timely Notice of Appeal in the lower court.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and SHANNON, JJ., concur.