WILLIAM EDWIN WALL, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a decision affirming the denial of post-conviction relief, finding the court lacked jurisdiction. The court also denied a separate petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. No, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus does not reveal a basis for relief.
“It is apparent on the face of the record that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed sua sponte.”
Establishes the reason for dismissing the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed a District Court's decision that affirmed a trial judge's order denying post-conviction relief. The appellant also filed a sepa…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant has appealed from a decision of a District Court affirming an Order of the trial judge denying post-conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. We have examined the appeal papers, including the Order of the trial judge and the affirming decision of the District Court. It is apparent on the face of the record that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed sua sponte.
Additionally, the appellant has filed in this Court, a document entitled “Amend Motion to Vacate”. This document is treated as a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and upon finding that it reveals no basis for relief by way of Habeas Corpus in this Court, the Writ is denied.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.