Carlos M. Maxwell v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carlos M. Maxwell v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 2019

Docket18-3695

StatusPublished

This text of Carlos M. Maxwell v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Carlos M. Maxwell v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections) 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

Carlos M. Maxwell v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D18-3695 _____________________________

CARLOS M. MAXWELL,

Appellant,

v.

MARK S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County. John C. Cooper, Judge.

August 9, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus on multiple grounds. Finding no merit in his claims, we affirm.

A petition for habeas corpus is intended to address issues regarding a defendant’s incarceration. Farrell v. State, 62 So. 3d 20, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). It may not be used to collaterally attack a judgment and sentence. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004). Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining review of issues which were raised, could have been raised, or should have been raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings. See Zuluaga v. Dep’t of Corrs., 32 So. 3d 674, 676-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Here, Appellant challenges the validity and sufficiency of the evidence, the authority of the court to impose the judgment and sentence, and the constitutionality of his conviction. These claims should or could have been raised on direct appeal, or in a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Therefore, a petition for writ of habeas corpus was an improper method for requesting relief. Even if the claims raised in the petition were treated as filed properly in a post-conviction motion, the claims would be time-barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Carlos M. Maxwell, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D18-3695 _____________________________

CARLOS M. MAXWELL,

Appellant,

v.

MARK S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County. John C. Cooper, Judge.

August 9, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus on multiple grounds. Finding no merit in his claims, we affirm.

A petition for habeas corpus is intended to address issues regarding a defendant’s incarceration. Farrell v. State, 62 So. 3d 20, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). It may not be used to collaterally attack a judgment and sentence. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004). Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining review of issues which were raised, could have been raised, or should have been raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings. See Zuluaga v. Dep’t of Corrs., 32 So. 3d 674, 676-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Here, Appellant challenges the validity and sufficiency of the evidence, the authority of the court to impose the judgment and sentence, and the constitutionality of his conviction. These claims should or could have been raised on direct appeal, or in a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Therefore, a petition for writ of habeas corpus was an improper method for requesting relief. Even if the claims raised in the petition were treated as filed properly in a post-conviction motion, the claims would be time-barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Carlos M. Maxwell, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carlos M. Maxwell v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-m-maxwell-v-mark-s-inch-secretary-florida-department-of-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack