Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

253 So. 2d 873

Docket No. 41442.

Johns v. Wainwright

James Darrell JOHNS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections of the State of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 27, 1971.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1971-10-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Now, petitioner invokes habeas corpus proceeding alleging the same errors as those presented to the District Court of Appeal and decided adversely to him. This Court will not reconsider those issues. Jones v. Wainwright, 252 So.2d 570 , opinion filed September 8, 1971. “This is in essence a petition for conflict certiorari (labeled habeas corpus) to circumvent the requirement of the rule that the petition be filed within thirty days from the decision of the District Court. “The District Courts of Appeal were never intended to be intermediate courts. It was the intention of the framers of the constitutional amendment which created the District Courts that the decision of those courts would, in most cases, be final and absolute. “The finality of the decision of the District Court of Appeal is recognized and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.” (pp. 873, 874)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Keegan v. State

Relies on Jones v. Wainwright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-10-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2004

9 state decisions

501971198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Henry R. Barksdale of Barksdale, Mayo, Murphy & Williams, P.A., Pensacola, for petitioner.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

¶3ADKINS, Justice.

¶4This cause is before us on petition for writ of habeas corpus.

¶5Petitioner was convicted of the offense of robbery and sentenced to imprisonment for life. On appeal, the judgment of conviction was affirmed. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari from this Court directed to the District Court of Appeal, but the petition was denied because it was untimely filed.

¶6Now, petitioner invokes habeas corpus proceeding alleging the same errors as those presented to the District Court of Appeal and decided adversely to him. This Court will not reconsider those issues. Jones v. Wainwright, 252 So.2d 570, opinion filed September 8, 1971.

¶7*874 This is in essence a petition for conflict certiorari (labeled habeas corpus) to circumvent the requirement of the rule that the petition be filed within thirty days from the decision of the District Court.

¶8The District Courts of Appeal were never intended to be intermediate courts. It was the intention of the framers of the constitutional amendment which created the District Courts that the decision of those courts would, in most cases, be final and absolute.

¶9The finality of the decision of the District Court of Appeal is recognized and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

¶10It is so ordered.

¶11ROBERTS, C.J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

/253/so2d/873 · .json · Public domain