Epps v. McNeil

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Epps v. McNeil

37 So. 3d 923, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8191, 2010 WL 2292219

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 2010

Docket1D09-2433

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 So. 3d 923 (Epps v. McNeil) 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

Epps v. McNeil, 37 So. 3d 923, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8191, 2010 WL 2292219 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that his sentence is illegal and, accordingly, that his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be granted to correct a manifest injustice. Because the petition was not filed in the sentencing court, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to address his claim on the merits. See Crockett v. Singletary, 723 So.2d 911, 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was without prejudice to his right to seek relief in the sentencing court. See Zuluaga v. State, Department of Corrections, 32 So.3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus where the petitioner challenged the legality of his sentence and the circuit court’s dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek proper relief in the sentencing court); cf. Davis v. State, *924 26 So.3d 647, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding for transfer where the circuit court denied an apparently meritorious petition for writ of habe-as corpus without indicating that it could be re-filed in the appropriate court).

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that his sentence is illegal and, accordingly, that his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be granted to correct a manifest injustice. Because the petition was not filed in the sentencing court, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to address his claim on the merits. See Crockett v. Singletary, 723 So.2d 911, 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was without prejudice to his right to seek relief in the sentencing court. See Zuluaga v. State, Department of Corrections, 32 So.3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus where the petitioner challenged the legality of his sentence and the circuit court’s dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek proper relief in the sentencing court); cf. Davis v. State, *924 26 So.3d 647, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding for transfer where the circuit court denied an apparently meritorious petition for writ of habe-as corpus without indicating that it could be re-filed in the appropriate court).

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 So. 3d 923, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8191, 2010 WL 2292219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epps-v-mcneil-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack