Carmen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carmen v. State

300 So. 2d 713, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8724

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 27, 1974

DocketNo. 73-270

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 300 So. 2d 713 (Carmen 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

Carmen v. State, 300 So. 2d 713, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8724 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Chief Judge.

Carmen’s scatter shot petition filed in the court in which he was convicted is styled an “Application for a Writ of Ha-beas Corpus.” The prayer of the petition on the 7th page thereof plainly refers to Rule 3.850 CrPR, a rule adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida to afford post conviction relief to those who are entitled to it. That rule provides that the questions involved shall be determined by a court in the county of trial rather than in the county of incarceration. See Gideon v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 153 So.2d 299; Roy v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 825; Reynolds v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 224 So.2d 769, cert, discharged, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 598; Andrews v. State, Fla.App.3d 1964, 160 So.2d 726; cf. Ruiter v. Wainwright, Fla.App.2d 1971, 249 So.2d 67; State ex rel. Wainwright v. Holley, Fla.App.2d 1970, 234 So.2d 409. The crucial allegations are those which relate to the propriety of the original proceedings, not to any conduct on the part of the officials of the correctional system. Consequently, Carmen filed his petition in the correct court and it was improperly denied on a finding that the court was without jurisdiction. We express no opinion on the merits of the petition. In fact, it would be advisable if prior to its reconsideration Carmen were afforded the advice and assistance of counsel who have assisted him in this appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

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

MANN, Chief Judge.

Carmen’s scatter shot petition filed in the court in which he was convicted is styled an “Application for a Writ of Ha-beas Corpus.” The prayer of the petition on the 7th page thereof plainly refers to Rule 3.850 CrPR, a rule adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida to afford post conviction relief to those who are entitled to it. That rule provides that the questions involved shall be determined by a court in the county of trial rather than in the county of incarceration. See Gideon v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 153 So.2d 299; Roy v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 825; Reynolds v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 224 So.2d 769, cert, discharged, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 598; Andrews v. State, Fla.App.3d 1964, 160 So.2d 726; cf. Ruiter v. Wainwright, Fla.App.2d 1971, 249 So.2d 67; State ex rel. Wainwright v. Holley, Fla.App.2d 1970, 234 So.2d 409. The crucial allegations are those which relate to the propriety of the original proceedings, not to any conduct on the part of the officials of the correctional system. Consequently, Carmen filed his petition in the correct court and it was improperly denied on a finding that the court was without jurisdiction. We express no opinion on the merits of the petition. In fact, it would be advisable if prior to its reconsideration Carmen were afforded the advice and assistance of counsel who have assisted him in this appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 So. 2d 713, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmen-v-state-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack