Shavers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shavers v. State

723 So. 2d 371, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16354, 1998 WL 903938

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1998

DocketNo. 98-2112

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 723 So. 2d 371 (Shavers 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

Shavers v. State, 723 So. 2d 371, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16354, 1998 WL 903938 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Virdie Shavers’ petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied on the finding that the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider a petition from a prisoner incarcerated outside Broward County. That conclusion was wrong because the petition challenged the conduct of Shavers’ Broward County trial. The circuit court in the county of incarceration does not have jurisdiction to review the propriety of a conviction from another circuit. See Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So.2d 889, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

However, denial of the petition was required for another reason. The issues raised in the petition should have been made on direct appeal or in a timely motion for post-conviction relief. Because the petition was filed more than two years after Shavers’ conviction became final, his complaints were time barred. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (1998).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Virdie Shavers’ petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied on the finding that the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider a petition from a prisoner incarcerated outside Broward County. That conclusion was wrong because the petition challenged the conduct of Shavers’ Broward County trial. The circuit court in the county of incarceration does not have jurisdiction to review the propriety of a conviction from another circuit. See Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So.2d 889, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

However, denial of the petition was required for another reason. The issues raised in the petition should have been made on direct appeal or in a timely motion for post-conviction relief. Because the petition was filed more than two years after Shavers’ conviction became final, his complaints were time barred. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (1998).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 So. 2d 371, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16354, 1998 WL 903938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shavers-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack