McAffee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McAffee v. State

925 So. 2d 1069, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3283, 2006 WL 549375

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2006

DocketNo. 2D05-4190

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 925 So. 2d 1069 (McAffee 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

McAffee v. State, 925 So. 2d 1069, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3283, 2006 WL 549375 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

Jerry McAffee appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and the denial of his motion for rehearing, alleging three claims of prose-cutorial misconduct. Because McAffee is precluded from raising his claims in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we affirm the order of the trial court dismissing McAffee’s petition. See White v. Dugger, 511 So.2d 554 (Fla.1987) (holding that ha-beas corpus is not the proper vehicle to raise issues that should have and could have been raised on direct appeal or in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 proceeding). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right McAffee may have to file a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion based on newly discovered evidence. See Ford v. State, 912 So.2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Any such motion will not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

Jerry McAffee appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and the denial of his motion for rehearing, alleging three claims of prose-cutorial misconduct. Because McAffee is precluded from raising his claims in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we affirm the order of the trial court dismissing McAffee’s petition. See White v. Dugger, 511 So.2d 554 (Fla.1987) (holding that ha-beas corpus is not the proper vehicle to raise issues that should have and could have been raised on direct appeal or in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 proceeding). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right McAffee may have to file a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion based on newly discovered evidence. See Ford v. State, 912 So.2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Any such motion will not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 So. 2d 1069, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3283, 2006 WL 549375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcaffee-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack