Sturdivan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sturdivan v. State

676 So. 2d 508, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7063, 1996 WL 382298

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 10, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1163

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 676 So. 2d 508 (Sturdivan 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

Sturdivan v. State, 676 So. 2d 508, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7063, 1996 WL 382298 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Merle Sturdivan (the “defendant”), seeks reinstatement of his dismissed habeas corpus petition. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The defendant argues that his conviction and sentence should be overturned because of an undue delay of over eight years between the lodging of a detainer against him and his first trial. Because these issues were previously raised and rejected in the defendant’s initial appeal of his conviction and sentence, Sturdivan v. State, 419 So.2d 300, 303 (Fla.1982) (vacating first degree murder conviction and remanding for a new trial because of failure to instruct on lesser included offenses, but holding defendant’s claims concerning unconstitutional delay invalid on retrial), we affirm. See Florida Real Estate Comm’n v. Harris, 134 So.2d 785 (Fla.1961), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 7, 83 S.Ct. 19, 9 L.Ed.2d 47, reh’g denied, 371 U.S. 906, 83 S.Ct. 203, 9 L.Ed.2d 167 (1962).

Habeas corpus petitions cannot be used as a method of obtaining a second appeal of a previously affirmed judgement. Byrd v. Singletary, 655 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1270, 134 L.Ed.2d 217 (1996); Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987); Brown v. State, 633 So.2d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The defendant asserts no new issues which could not have been or were not raised on his initial appeal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Merle Sturdivan (the “defendant”), seeks reinstatement of his dismissed habeas corpus petition. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The defendant argues that his conviction and sentence should be overturned because of an undue delay of over eight years between the lodging of a detainer against him and his first trial. Because these issues were previously raised and rejected in the defendant’s initial appeal of his conviction and sentence, Sturdivan v. State, 419 So.2d 300, 303 (Fla.1982) (vacating first degree murder conviction and remanding for a new trial because of failure to instruct on lesser included offenses, but holding defendant’s claims concerning unconstitutional delay invalid on retrial), we affirm. See Florida Real Estate Comm’n v. Harris, 134 So.2d 785 (Fla.1961), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 7, 83 S.Ct. 19, 9 L.Ed.2d 47, reh’g denied, 371 U.S. 906, 83 S.Ct. 203, 9 L.Ed.2d 167 (1962).

Habeas corpus petitions cannot be used as a method of obtaining a second appeal of a previously affirmed judgement. Byrd v. Singletary, 655 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1270, 134 L.Ed.2d 217 (1996); Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987); Brown v. State, 633 So.2d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The defendant asserts no new issues which could not have been or were not raised on his initial appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 So. 2d 508, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7063, 1996 WL 382298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturdivan-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack