Dixon v. State
110 So. 3d 915, 2013 WL 363717, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1435
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dixon v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8206 →
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dixon v. State, 110 So. 3d 915, 2013 WL 363717, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1435 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).
110 So. 3d 915 (Dixon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Zuluaga v. State, Dept. of Corrections
32 So. 3d 674 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Epps v. McNeil
37 So. 3d 923 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)