LEON G. SCHACK, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated a timely pursuit of appellate remedies or presented an independent ground for the court's jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the petitioner's motion to vacate his judgment and sentence.
No, the petitioner has not demonstrated a timely pursuit of appellate remedies, nor has he presented an independent ground for invoking the jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. Therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
“but has failed to show a timely pursuit of appellate remedies under the Rule, and presents no independent ground for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.”
This quote explains the primary reason for the court's denial of the petition.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court. He had previously filed a motion to vacate his j…
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 Appellate Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for consideration an original petition for writ of habeas corpus. A motion by petitioner to vacate his judgment and sentence has previously been filed in the trial court, pursuant to Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, and denied by order of the court, finding that petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested.
Petitioner here recites the filing of petitions for writ of mandamus in the District Court of Appeal, Second District, but has failed to show a timely pursuit of appellate remedies under the Rule, and presents no independent ground for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., Mitchell v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 1SS So.2d 868; see also State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith et al., Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 518.
The writ is accordingly denied.
DREW, C. J., and THORNAL, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Palm Beach Cnty. v. Millard F. Hibbard, 292 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)…of officers except municipal officers.” (emphasis supplied) State v. Holbrook, supra, 176 So. at 102. See also: Coon v. Board of Public Instruction of Okaloosa County, 203 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1967); City of Pensacola v. Scenic Hills Utility Co., Inc., 166 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1964); State v. City of Tampa, 72 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1954); Hanson v. State, 56 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1952); State et al. v. Florida State Imp. Commission, 48 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1950). Arguing the validity of the questioned act, appellant relies on State…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Richard W. Ervin v. Smith, 160 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1964)