Beene v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beene v. Singletary

706 So. 2d 125, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1888, 1998 WL 78642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1998

DocketNo. 96-4179

StatusPublished

This text of 706 So. 2d 125 (Beene v. Singletary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beene v. Singletary, 706 So. 2d 125, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1888, 1998 WL 78642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Moore Beene appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, he raised seven grounds for relief. The lower court denied the petition on the basis that the claims raised therein had already been considered and denied following a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3,850. We affirm the lower court’s order as to Grounds I-VI. However, we reverse and remand as to Ground VII because it appears that the lower court failed to address this particular claim, which was not raised in the earlier rule 3.850 motion. On remand, the lower court shall determine whether the claim set forth under Ground VII is cognizable under rule 3.800 and, if so, shall consider it as such.

KAHN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Moore Beene appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, he raised seven grounds for relief. The lower court denied the petition on the basis that the claims raised therein had already been considered and denied following a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3,850. We affirm the lower court’s order as to Grounds I-VI. However, we reverse and remand as to Ground VII because it appears that the lower court failed to address this particular claim, which was not raised in the earlier rule 3.850 motion. On remand, the lower court shall determine whether the claim set forth under Ground VII is cognizable under rule 3.800 and, if so, shall consider it as such.

KAHN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 125, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1888, 1998 WL 78642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beene-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1998.