ISIAH HAMILTON, 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.
Hamilton appeals denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850 based on newly discovered witnesses to an alleged robbery. The court holds that while coram nobis concepts may inform 1.850 petitions, claims based solely on newly discovered evidence must proceed through a writ of coram nobis petition rather than under Rule 1.850.
Post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence must be sought through petition for a writ of coram nobis, not under CrPR 1.850. While general coram nobis concepts may inform Rule 1.850 petitions, Rule 1.850 is limited to collateral attacks involving constitutional violations and similar matters, not newly discovered evidence claims.
[1] A petition for post-conviction relief under CrPR 1.850 is not the proper remedy for newly discovered evidence.
[2] Newly discovered evidence is a basis for seeking relief through a writ of coram nobis.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well settled that habeas corpus is not a corrective remedy, and thus is not always available where a writ of coram nobis would be obtainable.”
Establishes that habeas corpus cannot substitute for coram nobis as a remedy for newly discovered evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHamilton was convicted of robbery and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. His direct appeal was affirmed by the district court. He subsequently filed…
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 Petition For Post Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. This conviction and sentence was appealed to this court and we affirmed. Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 812 (Per Curiam). Appellant later filed in pro. per. a petition for post-conviction relief *256under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A., which was later amended by his present attorney, seeking relief due to discovery of new witnesses to the alleged robbery. A hearing was held, and an order was entered denying appellant the relief requested. Appellant has appealed from this order.
Appellant acknowledges that the relief sought is traditionally obtainable through petition for writ of coram nobis. We agree. See Ex Parte Welles, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 708. Cf. Sanders v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So.2d 399; Wolfe v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So.2d 397. However, it is urged that the general concepts applicable to issuance of writs of coram nobis are also applicable to CrPR 1.850. Thus CrPR 1.850 encompasses any relief traditionally allowable through coram nobis, and for this reason appellant’s petition to the trial court under CrPR 1.850 was proper. Although we have been unable to find precedent precisely determinative of this issue, we are of the opinion that appellant’s proper recourse was through petition to the trial court for a writ of coram nobis.
It is well settled that habeas corpus is not a corrective remedy, and thus is not always available where a writ of coram nobis would be obtainable. See Roberts v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 182, 116 So. 228. It also appears that petition for writ of coram nobis on the basis of newly discovered evidence would not come within the scope of CrPR 1.850, which is concerned with collateral attacks in the nature of imposing sentence in violation of rights under the federal and state constitutions and other similar matters. Cf. Grant v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 503, 504; Brown, Collateral Post Conviction Remedies in Florida, 1968, 20 U.Fla.L.Rev. 306, 387-88. Thus appellant having pursued an improper remedy, we must dismiss this appeal with leave to file a petition for a writ of coram nobis with the trial court from which this appeal issued.
Appeal dismissed.
HOBSON, C. J., concurs.
PIERCE, J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting).
I would affirm, because—
(1) I seriously doubt if CrPR 1.850 is available for post-conviction relief on the ground of allegedly new evidence discovered after judgment and sentence (Dade National Bank of Miami v. Kay, Fla.App. 1961, 131 So.2d 24; Springer v. Morris, Fla. 1954, 74 So.2d 781; Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Knowles, 1914, 68 Fla. 400, 67 So. 122; Vining v. American Bakeries Company, 1935, 121 Fla. 116, 163 So. 396);
(2) If the ground of allegedly newly discovered evidence is available for relief at all after judgment and sentence, I believe habeas corpus, rather than CrPR 1.850, would be the appropriate remedy, because the ground for relief, namely, the discovery of new and material evidence, occurred after the judgment and sentence (Powe v. State, Fla.1968, 216 So.2d 446; Platt v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 666; Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239, and O’Hara v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 429); and
(3) On the record before us, I could not conscientiously say that the trial Judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for post-conviction relief in his findings on the evidence adduced before him (State v. Sears, 1941, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So.2d 721; Cash v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 18; and Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 95).
PIERCE, Judge (dissenting).
I would affirm, because—
(1) I seriously doubt if CrPR 1.850 is available for post-conviction relief on the ground of allegedly new evidence discovered after judgment and sentence (Dade National Bank of Miami v. Kay, Fla.App. 1961, 131 So. 2d 24; Springer v. Morris, Fla. 1954, 74 So. 2d 781; Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Knowles, 1914, 68 Fla. 400, 67 So. 122; Vining v. American Bakeries Company, 1935, 121 Fla. 116, 163 So. 396);
(2) If the ground of allegedly newly discovered evidence is available for relief at all after judgment and sentence, I believe habeas corpus, rather than CrPR 1.850, would be the appropriate remedy, because the ground for relief, namely, the discovery of new and material evidence, occurred after the judgment and sentence (Powe v. State, Fla.1968, 216 So. 2d 446; Platt v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 666; Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So. 2d 239, and O’Hara v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 429); and (3) On the record before us, I could not conscientiously say that the trial Judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for post-conviction relief in his findings on the evidence adduced before him (State v. Sears, 1941, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So. 2d 721; Cash v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 18; and Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 95).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hallman v. State, 343 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…sition of the death penalty was involved.) We relied for such holding on Ex parte Welles, 53 So. 2d 708 (Fla.1951), which held precisely that. Appellant now asks us to clarify that holding in light of the opinion of this court in Hamilton v. State, 237 So. 2d 255 (Fla.2d DCA 1970), in which we held that, notwithstanding a prior appeal to this court, writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence should be sought and granted by the trial court. A careful reconsideration of Hamilton in the light…1 / 2
-
State v. Basilio Gomez, 363 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…but unlike us, has held that newly discovered evidence as a ground for collateral attack of a criminal conviction can only be raised on a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Hallman v. State, 343 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Hamilton v. State, 237 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). As to the latter, we respectfully disagree and conclude that such ground can also be raised on a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Indeed, the motion to vacate proceeding is the preferred procedure…
-
Laytner v. State, 239 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…inal trial and, therefore, did not constitute a valid ground for Cr.PR relief. Kinsey v. State, 155 Fla. 159, 19 So. 2d 706; Cayson v. State, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 719; Fast v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 203; Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 255. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the conviction and final judgment under review in Case No. 68-502 be and the same is hereby affirmed as amended, by reducing the conviction to a misdemeanor; and the order of the trial court denying relief…
Authorities Cited (20 total)
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Knowles, 68 Fla. 400 (Fla. 1914)
- Powe v. State, 216 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1968)
- Dade Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. KAY, 131 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Eugenia Vining v. Am. Bakeries Co., 121 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1935)
- Hoover v. State, 212 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Springer v. Morris, 74 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1954)
- Ex parte Welles, 53 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1951)
- State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1941)
- Hulan Grant v. State, 166 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)