BORROTO v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

BORROTO v. State

19 So. 3d 411, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13491, 2009 WL 2900699

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 2009

Docket5D09-2287

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 So. 3d 411 (BORROTO 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

BORROTO v. State, 19 So. 3d 411, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13491, 2009 WL 2900699 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ramon Armas Borroto, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court correctly ruled that Borroto’s petition did not allege a proper basis for habeas relief. First, Borroto claimed several instances of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel relating to a motion filed on Borroto’s behalf pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. However, “a claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel does not provide a valid basis for [habeas] relief.” Hicks v. State, 979 So.2d 360, 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987)). Second, Borroto included a number of issues relating to his underlying conviction that should have been raised, if at all, on direct appeal — and are therefore procedurally barred from being used to collaterally attack his conviction. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 383 So.2d 770, 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Finally, Borroto alleges a number of instances of ineffective assistance of his original trial counsel, which cannot be raised by habeas petition. See Richardson v. State, 918 So.2d 999, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Since adoption of rule 3.850 and its predecessor, the courts have consistently held that it is inappropriate to collaterally attack a conviction through the process of habeas proceedings because such claims are cognizable under the rule.”). “[W]hen such an improper habeas attack has been lodged, the proper disposition is dismissal.” Sutton v. State, 963 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ramon Armas Borroto, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court correctly ruled that Borroto’s petition did not allege a proper basis for habeas relief. First, Borroto claimed several instances of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel relating to a motion filed on Borroto’s behalf pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. However, “a claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel does not provide a valid basis for [habeas] relief.” Hicks v. State, 979 So.2d 360, 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987)). Second, Borroto included a number of issues relating to his underlying conviction that should have been raised, if at all, on direct appeal — and are therefore procedurally barred from being used to collaterally attack his conviction. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 383 So.2d 770, 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Finally, Borroto alleges a number of instances of ineffective assistance of his original trial counsel, which cannot be raised by habeas petition. See Richardson v. State, 918 So.2d 999, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Since adoption of rule 3.850 and its predecessor, the courts have consistently held that it is inappropriate to collaterally attack a conviction through the process of habeas proceedings because such claims are cognizable under the rule.”). “[W]hen such an improper habeas attack has been lodged, the proper disposition is dismissal.” Sutton v. State, 963 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 So. 3d 411, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13491, 2009 WL 2900699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borroto-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack