CARL JOHN JAGIELLO, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a habeas corpus petition, clarifying that habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal from a denial of a Rule 1 motion, and that a prior denial of such a motion would preclude further relief via habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal from the denial of a Rule 1 motion. If a Rule 1 motion was denied, the proper remedy is an appeal to the appropriate district court of appeal, if timely made.
“If this be true, then his remedy would have been by appeal from the denial of the Rule 1 motion to the Second District Court of Appeal, if timely made, since habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal from a Rule 1 denial.”
Explains that habeas corpus is not the correct avenue for relief if a Rule 1 motion has already been denied.
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 was convicted of a crime and serving his sentence when he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a county other than the senten…
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
Appellant was convicted of a crime by the Circuit Court of Lake County. Thereafter, while serving his sentence at Raiford, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court for Bradford County. This petition was denied, without prejudice, however, to the filing of a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule Number 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix in the sentencing court, and this appeal follows.
We would have no hesitancy in affirming the correctness of the lower court’s order, but the appellant asserts in his reply brief that he did file a Rule 1 motion with the sentencing court, and that this motion was denied, and he points to several statements in his petition for the writ of habeas corpus which so indicate. If this be true, then his remedy would have been by appeal from the denial of the Rule 1 motion to the Second District Court of Appeal, if timely made, since habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal from a Rule 1 denial.
We make this observation so that neither the appellant nor the sentencing court may deem that our affirmance implies that appellant may file another Rule 1 motion, if, in fact, a previous one was denied.
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.