PETER BRYAN WALKER, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Peter Bryan Walker petitioned for habeas corpus relief challenging his ten-year sentence for breaking and entering, arguing the sentence was enhanced by consideration of prior invalid convictions and that his guilty plea was coerced. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the petition because Walker failed to timely file his notice of appeal within the thirty-day jurisdictional period, and habeas corpus was inappropriate where the delay was not caused by state action.
The writ of habeas corpus is discharged and the petition is dismissed. Habeas corpus is not available where a petitioner negligently fails to file a timely notice of appeal absent state action preventing the filing, and the petitioner has not exhausted remedies available under Rule 3.850.
[1] A writ of habeas corpus may issue even though the petitioner is not entitled to immediate relief from confinement.
[2] Habeas corpus is inappropriate when a petitioner's failure to file a timely notice of appeal is due to their own negligence and not state action.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“While this Court has held that habeas corpus lies where direct appeal of a conviction is frustrated by state action, Petitioner in no way alleges that the delay in the filing of his notice was occasioned by the requirements of prison rules or the neglect or oversight of a prison official.”
Establishes the key distinction that habeas corpus requires state-caused frustration of appeal, not private negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker is imprisoned at Raiford serving a ten-year sentence for breaking and entering (terminating June 23, 1976), plus multiple other sentences inclu…
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 Untimely Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us on a writ of ha-beas corpus and return thereto. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(6), Florida Constitution.
Petitioner is a prisoner at Raiford where he is serving a ten year sentence for breaking and entering, which sentence terminates effective June 23, 1976. While it is this sentence with which we are primarily concerned, Petitioner has the following additional sentences with which to contend: two one-year consecutive sentences, each imposed for escaping from custody; a one-year consecutive sentence for robbery; a fifteen-year concurrent sentence for escape; and an overall life sentence consisting of the following thirteen commitments: five for life, three for fifteen years, and five for five years, all to run concurrently. We note that this Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus may issue even though the Petitioner is not entitled to immediate relief from confinement.1
Petitioner, in his petition, bases his claim for relief on the following grounds: (1) that the ten-year sentence imposed for breaking and entering was enhanced because of consideration given to prior invalid convictions contrary to the principle of United States v. Tucker;2 and (2) that his plea of guilty to the charge of breaking and entering to commit a felony was coerced.
In his return, Respondent points out that Petitioner filed his motion to vacate in the Escambia County Circuit Court, which denied that motion on April 10, 1974; on the 29th day thereafter, (i.e., May 9, 1974), Petitioner submitted to prison officials his notice of appeal and other appeal papers, which documents were not filed until May 13, 1974, thirty-three days after the denial order. The District Court of Appeal, First District, dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on the ground that it was untimely filed. In his return, Respondent takes the position that this cause is improperly before the Court, Petitioner having failed to exhaust the relief available to him under Rule 3.-850, Rules of Criminal Procedure, because of his negligent failure to have his notice of appeal filed within the thirty-day jurisdictional time period.3
While this Court has held that habeas corpus lies where direct appeal of a conviction is frustrated by state action,4 Petitioner in no way alleges that the delay in the filing of his notice was occasioned by the requirements of prison rules or the neglect or oversight of a prison official. To the contrary, Petitioner simply alleges “these instruments, through some delay in the mail (or delay in the Clerk’s office) were not filed until the 13th day of May, 1974”. Furthermore, this case is factually identical to Tucker v. Wainwright5 in which the notice of appeal was dated on the 29th day from the rendition of the order, the notice of appeal was received and filed by the Clerk of the lower court on the thirty-third day after rendition of the order, and there was no allegation that any action by the State prevented the timely filing of the notice of appeal; habeas corpus was held inappropriate in that case.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ of habeas corpus is discharged and the petition is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J„ and McCAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur. . Frizzell v. State, 238 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1970).
. 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ot. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972).
.Mitchell v. Wainwright, 155 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1963).
.State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, 160 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1964).
.235 So. 2d 38 (Fla.App.1970).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)…ker v. Wainwright, 235 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), contain re- [*618] suits or analyses inconsistent with our views and accordingly are disapproved to the extent that they conflict with this opinion. We also are receding from Walker v. Wainwright, 303 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1974), and State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, 160 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1964), to the extent they conflict with the views expressed above. While the doctrine of stare decisis normally would require a greater deference to this prior precedent, we find tha…
-
Sparre v. State, 164 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 2015)…ker v. Wainwright, 235 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), contain results or analyses incon [*1199] sistent with our views and accordingly are disapproved to the extent that they conflict with this opinion. We also are receding from Walker v. Wainwright, 303 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1974), and State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, 160 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1964), to the extent they conflict with the views expressed above. While the doctrine of stare decisis normally would require a greater deference to this prior precedent, we find tha…
-
Clifford v. State, 513 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ifford claims to have relinquished them. Prison personnel may fall within the class of state agents whose interference with the timely processing of an appeal cannot foreclose the defendant from having his conviction reviewed. Walker v. Wainwright, 303 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1974); Dennis v. State, 231 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). However, a defendant wishing to hinge a claim for belated review of his conviction upon the prison staff ought to be required to demonstrate not only that his rights would not have been…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1972)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Richard W. Ervin v. Smith, 160 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1964)
- Berend v. Louie L. Wainwright, 155 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1963)
- Frizzell v. State, 238 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1970)
- Tucker v. Louie L. Wainwright, 235 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Spiegel, Inc. v. Forest E. Johnson, 235 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)