BELIZAIRE v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

BELIZAIRE v. State

68 So. 3d 963, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13341, 2011 WL 3695636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2011

Docket3D11-210

StatusPublished

This text of 68 So. 3d 963 (BELIZAIRE v. State) 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

BELIZAIRE v. State, 68 So. 3d 963, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13341, 2011 WL 3695636 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, C.J.

Maxo Belizaire appeals from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed below in which he claimed error in the jury instructions given at his trial. Because Belizaire’s petition raises only issues that should have been raised on direct appeal and because he does not claim that trial or appellate counsel was in any manner ineffective, we affirm the order denying relief. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(c)(6) (“This rule does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have or should have been raised at trial and if, properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence.”); Wright v. State, 857 So.2d 861, 874 (Fla.2003) (“Habeas corpus should not be used as a vehicle for presenting issues which should have been raised at trial and on appeal or in post-conviction proceedings.”); see also Wyatt v. State, 71 So.3d 86, 97 n. 12 (Fla. 2011) (confirming that claims regarding the adequacy or constitutionality of jury instructions should be raised on direct appeal not via a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion).

Affirmed.

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

WELLS, C.J.

Maxo Belizaire appeals from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed below in which he claimed error in the jury instructions given at his trial. Because Belizaire’s petition raises only issues that should have been raised on direct appeal and because he does not claim that trial or appellate counsel was in any manner ineffective, we affirm the order denying relief. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(c)(6) (“This rule does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have or should have been raised at trial and if, properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence.”); Wright v. State, 857 So.2d 861, 874 (Fla.2003) (“Habeas corpus should not be used as a vehicle for presenting issues which should have been raised at trial and on appeal or in post-conviction proceedings.”); see also Wyatt v. State, 71 So.3d 86, 97 n. 12 (Fla. 2011) (confirming that claims regarding the adequacy or constitutionality of jury instructions should be raised on direct appeal not via a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 So. 3d 963, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13341, 2011 WL 3695636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belizaire-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack