Derrick Barrett v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 4, 2026
• Docket: 3D2026-0180
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 4, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D26-0180 Lower Tribunal No. F16-16155 ________________

Derrick Barrett, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction—Habeas Corpus

Derrick Barrett, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before, EMAS, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed with prejudice. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5) (“A petition

alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct review must not

be filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final on direct review unless it alleges under oath with a specific factual basis that

the petitioner was affirmatively misled about the results of the appeal by

counsel. In no case may a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel on direct review be filed more than 4 years after the judgment and

sentence become final on direct review.”); Derrick Barrett v. State, 425 So.

3d 681, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (dismissing with prejudice an untimely

petition for writ of habeas corpus which alleged the same conclusory claims

of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as those alleged in the instant

petition; further holding: “Aligning ourselves with our sister courts, we do so

with prejudice.”) (citing Fields v. State, 126 So. 3d 382, 383 (Fla. 4th DCA

2013) (dismissing with prejudice legally insufficient petition for writ of habeas

corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel where “petitioner

did not allege any supporting facts or references to the record at all”) and

Eleazer v. State, 342 So. 3d 830, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“Because

Petitioner's claims are conclusory and lack supporting facts to demonstrate

a basis for relief, the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel is dismissed with prejudice.”)). See also Barrett v. State, No. 3D25-

0967 (dismissing, by clerk’s order, untimely petition alleging same

conclusory claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as those

raised in the instant petition).