Gray v. Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gray v. Department of Corrections

204 So. 3d 975, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17894

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 2, 2016

DocketCase 5D16-2379

StatusPublished

This text of 204 So. 3d 975 (Gray v. Department of Corrections) 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

Gray v. Department of Corrections, 204 So. 3d 975, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17894 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lester Gray appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

Gray, who was convicted in the Circuit Court of Orange County, is currently incarcerated in Taylor County. The trial court incorrectly denied Gray’s petition, concluding that it should have been filed in Taylor County. As the Third District explained more than ten years ago in Broom v. State, 907 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005):

The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration, but not when the claims attack the validity of the judgment or sentence. Only the' court in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced has jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a judgment or sentence, and such an attack must be brought pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850, not by petition for writ of habeas corpus.

(Internal citations omitted). Because the petition collaterally attacks the validity of Gray’s conviction and sentence, Orange County had jurisdiction to review the ha-beas petition.

Notwithstanding, we affirm the denial of the habeas petition because the trial judge reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason. Gray has , previously filed several postconviction motions. An extraordinary writ petition is not a second appeal, and cannot be used to litigate pr relitigate issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings. See Denson v. State, 775 So.2d 288, 289 (Fla. 2000). Habeas corpus may not be used to file successive rule *976 3.850 motions or to raise issues that would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under that rule. Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1245-46 (Fla. 2004). Any concerns that Gray had regarding his conviction and sentence needed to have been raised in his previous postcon-viction motions.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lester Gray appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

Gray, who was convicted in the Circuit Court of Orange County, is currently incarcerated in Taylor County. The trial court incorrectly denied Gray’s petition, concluding that it should have been filed in Taylor County. As the Third District explained more than ten years ago in Broom v. State, 907 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005):

The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration, but not when the claims attack the validity of the judgment or sentence. Only the' court in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced has jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a judgment or sentence, and such an attack must be brought pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850, not by petition for writ of habeas corpus.

(Internal citations omitted). Because the petition collaterally attacks the validity of Gray’s conviction and sentence, Orange County had jurisdiction to review the ha-beas petition.

Notwithstanding, we affirm the denial of the habeas petition because the trial judge reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason. Gray has , previously filed several postconviction motions. An extraordinary writ petition is not a second appeal, and cannot be used to litigate pr relitigate issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings. See Denson v. State, 775 So.2d 288, 289 (Fla. 2000). Habeas corpus may not be used to file successive rule *976 3.850 motions or to raise issues that would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under that rule. Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1245-46 (Fla. 2004). Any concerns that Gray had regarding his conviction and sentence needed to have been raised in his previous postcon-viction motions.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 3d 975, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack