Dixon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dixon v. State

110 So. 3d 915, 2013 WL 363717, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1435

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-3418

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 3d 915 (Dixon 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

Dixon v. State, 110 So. 3d 915, 2013 WL 363717, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1435 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed in the sentencing court, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address it. See, e.g., Epps v. McNeil, 37 So.3d 923, 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Zuluaga v. State, Dep’t of Corrs., 32 So.3d 674, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition on that basis, without prejudice to appellant’s [916]*916right to file a proper post-conviction motion in the appropriate court.

BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed in the sentencing court, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address it. See, e.g., Epps v. McNeil, 37 So.3d 923, 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Zuluaga v. State, Dep’t of Corrs., 32 So.3d 674, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition on that basis, without prejudice to appellant’s [916]*916right to file a proper post-conviction motion in the appropriate court.

BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 915, 2013 WL 363717, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack