Bateman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bateman v. State

269 So. 2d 694

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 30, 1972·No. No. 72-359·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A motion filed in the trial court pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, 33 F.S.A., is an improper procedure by which to raise the question of a frustrated appeal. The appropriate procedure to seek delayed appellate review due to frustration of appeal by state action is by petition for writ of habeas corpus to the appropriate appellate court. Powe v. State, 216 So.2d 446 (Fla.1968); Jackson v. State, 227 So.2d 354 (Fla.App.1969).

Accordingly, our decision affirming the trial court’s denial of the Rule 3.850 motion is without prejudice to the appellant to proceed by way of habeas corpus.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

A motion filed in the trial court pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, 33 F.S.A., is an improper procedure by which to raise the question of a frustrated appeal. The appropriate procedure to seek delayed appellate review due to frustration of appeal by state action is by petition for writ of habeas corpus to the appropriate appellate court. Powe v. State, 216 So.2d 446 (Fla.1968); Jackson v. State, 227 So.2d 354 (Fla.App.1969).

Accordingly, our decision affirming the trial court’s denial of the Rule 3.850 motion is without prejudice to the appellant to proceed by way of habeas corpus.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.

Bateman v. State, 269 So. 2d 694 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

269 So. 2d 694 (Bateman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related