Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

388 So. 2d 1021

Docket No. 59720.

Hargrave v. Wainwright

Lenson A. HARGRAVE, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 24, 1980.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1980-09-24

Relies on Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Blake v. Georgia · Spenkelink v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-09-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2007

18 state decisions

170198019902000decided

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 →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defenders, Miami, for petitioner.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The petitioner, Lenson A. Hargrave, has presented by petition for writ of habeas corpus two issues which could have been raised, but were not raised, on his direct appeal. It is well settled that habeas corpus may not be used as a vehicle to raise for the first time issues that the petitioner could have raised during the formal trial and on appeal. State v. Mayo,87 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1956); Irvin v. Chapman,75 So.2d 591 (Fla. 1954), cert. denied,348 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 297, 99 L.Ed. 718 (1955). Cf. Spenkelink v. State,350 So.2d 85 (Fla.), cert. denied,434 U.S. 960, 98 S.Ct. 492, 54 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977) (issue first raised on review under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850). Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the application for a stay of execution pending our disposition of this matter are hereby denied.

¶5It is so ordered.

¶6SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

/388/so2d/1021 · .json · Public domain