Moreno Mujica v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco)

M.D. Florida

Moreno Mujica v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco)

DecidedOctober 25, 2023

Docket8:23-cv-02405

StatusUnknown

This text of Moreno Mujica v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco) (Moreno Mujica v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moreno Mujica v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco), (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

KERVIN MORENO MUJICA, SR.,

Petitioner, v. Case No. 8:23-cv-2405-CEH-AEP

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. /

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) in which he challenges convictions in Pasco County, Florida, in Case No. 2017-cf-182. It is apparent from records from the state trial court that Petitioner’s judgment of conviction, entered on October 18, 2023, has not become final.1 Therefore, the petition is not ripe for review. See Maharaj v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 304 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (federal habeas petition was not ripe for review when state judgment was not yet final); Gust v. State, 535 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that if a defendant does not appeal his conviction or sentence, his judgment of conviction becomes final when the 30–day period for filing a direct appeal expires). Accordingly:

1 See https://www.civitekflorida.com/ocrs/app/caseinformation.xhtml?query=xhQlTgKJB0qJBTn 5eqclxDbclNL5FY-rMBs5MtdaS5w&from=partyCaseSummary 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. No certificate of appealability will issue. Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability only if he shows that reasonable jurists would find debatable (1) whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling, and (2) whether the petition stated “a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner cannot make the required showing. Specifically, he cannot show by citation of contrary authority or otherwise that reasonable jurists would debate the determination that the petition is not ripe for review and that he stated a substantial denial of a constitutional right. And, because he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, he is denied leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 3. The Clerk is directed to close this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 25, 2023.

Chakene Pdiards Mo TDA pl yell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge Copy to: Petitioner, pro se

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

KERVIN MORENO MUJICA, SR.,

Petitioner, v. Case No. 8:23-cv-2405-CEH-AEP

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. /

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) in which he challenges convictions in Pasco County, Florida, in Case No. 2017-cf-182. It is apparent from records from the state trial court that Petitioner’s judgment of conviction, entered on October 18, 2023, has not become final.1 Therefore, the petition is not ripe for review. See Maharaj v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 304 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (federal habeas petition was not ripe for review when state judgment was not yet final); Gust v. State, 535 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that if a defendant does not appeal his conviction or sentence, his judgment of conviction becomes final when the 30–day period for filing a direct appeal expires). Accordingly:

1 See https://www.civitekflorida.com/ocrs/app/caseinformation.xhtml?query=xhQlTgKJB0qJBTn 5eqclxDbclNL5FY-rMBs5MtdaS5w&from=partyCaseSummary 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. No certificate of appealability will issue. Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability only if he shows that reasonable jurists would find debatable (1) whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling, and (2) whether the petition stated “a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner cannot make the required showing. Specifically, he cannot show by citation of contrary authority or otherwise that reasonable jurists would debate the determination that the petition is not ripe for review and that he stated a substantial denial of a constitutional right. And, because he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, he is denied leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 3. The Clerk is directed to close this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 25, 2023.

Chakene Pdiards Mo TDA pl yell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge Copy to: Petitioner, pro se

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moreno Mujica v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreno-mujica-v-secretary-department-of-corrections-pasco-flmd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack