Garner v. Wainwright

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garner v. Wainwright

454 So. 2d 28, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14217

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 1984

DocketNo. AZ-259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 454 So. 2d 28 (Garner v. Wainwright) 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

Garner v. Wainwright, 454 So. 2d 28, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14217 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant files a petition for writ of habeas corpus which is identical to one previously filed before the Circuit Court for Bradford County. The lower tribunal denied the petition by order of May 16, 1984, without prejudice to the filing of a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R. Crim.P. We find that appellant’s proper procedure was to appeal this order and not to file an identical petition before this Court. However, because the petition was filed within the thirty (30) day period prescribed by the appellate rules for appeals from final orders, see Rule 9.110(b), Fla.R. App.P., we treat the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed herein as a notice of appeal directed to the order entered below denying the identical habeas corpus petition. Because we agree with the lower tribunal that appellant’s proper action under the circumstances outlined in the petition is the filing of a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P., we affirm the order of the lower tribunal, without prejudice to the filing of such a motion.

SMITH, JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant files a petition for writ of habeas corpus which is identical to one previously filed before the Circuit Court for Bradford County. The lower tribunal denied the petition by order of May 16, 1984, without prejudice to the filing of a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R. Crim.P. We find that appellant’s proper procedure was to appeal this order and not to file an identical petition before this Court. However, because the petition was filed within the thirty (30) day period prescribed by the appellate rules for appeals from final orders, see Rule 9.110(b), Fla.R. App.P., we treat the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed herein as a notice of appeal directed to the order entered below denying the identical habeas corpus petition. Because we agree with the lower tribunal that appellant’s proper action under the circumstances outlined in the petition is the filing of a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P., we affirm the order of the lower tribunal, without prejudice to the filing of such a motion.

SMITH, JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 So. 2d 28, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garner-v-wainwright-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack