State v. Dearing

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Dearing

513 So. 2d 232, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2338, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12217

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 29, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2478

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 232 (State v. Dearing) 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

State v. Dearing, 513 So. 2d 232, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2338, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12217 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from an order granting appellant’s emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordering his release from custody.¹ We reverse, based upon the following brief analysis. First, to the extent that the grounds raised in the instant petition have been previously considered and rejected by this court, Dearing v. State, 469 So.2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (mem.) (habeas corpus denied), the instant petition was a successive petition for the same relief, which could not properly be entertained by the trial court and was subject to summary denial, Francois v. Wainwright, 470 So.2d 685 (Fla.1985); State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So.2d 409 (Fla.1973); State ex rel. Miller v. Kelly, 88 So.2d 118 (Fla.1956). Second, as to the newly raised grounds, a sister state’s dismissal of earlier Florida extradition proceedings did not bar Florida from subsequently enforcing its criminal judgment and sentence against appellant. Ex Parte Silverman, 69 Ohio App. 128, 42 N.E.2d 87 (1942). Nor was there a bar in the five-year delay before appellant’s eventual return to Florida pursuant to a Governor’s warrant (during which time appellant was reincarcerated for 4 years and 10 months for violation of his federal parole). See State ex rel. Shotkin v. Buchanan, 149 So.2d 574, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).

Reversed.²

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from an order granting appellant’s emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordering his release from custody.¹ We reverse, based upon the following brief analysis. First, to the extent that the grounds raised in the instant petition have been previously considered and rejected by this court, Dearing v. State, 469 So.2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (mem.) (habeas corpus denied), the instant petition was a successive petition for the same relief, which could not properly be entertained by the trial court and was subject to summary denial, Francois v. Wainwright, 470 So.2d 685 (Fla.1985); State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So.2d 409 (Fla.1973); State ex rel. Miller v. Kelly, 88 So.2d 118 (Fla.1956). Second, as to the newly raised grounds, a sister state’s dismissal of earlier Florida extradition proceedings did not bar Florida from subsequently enforcing its criminal judgment and sentence against appellant. Ex Parte Silverman, 69 Ohio App. 128, 42 N.E.2d 87 (1942). Nor was there a bar in the five-year delay before appellant’s eventual return to Florida pursuant to a Governor’s warrant (during which time appellant was reincarcerated for 4 years and 10 months for violation of his federal parole). See State ex rel. Shotkin v. Buchanan, 149 So.2d 574, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).

Reversed.²

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 232, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2338, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dearing-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack