Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

559 So. 2d 1276

Collins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-04-18

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 2001

1 state decisions

Relies on 523 So. 2d 639 - State v. Broom · 405 So. 2d 283 - DeArce v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-04-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Eddie Collins appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal.

¶2In January, 1989, while a pretrial detainee in Charlotte County, Collins filed his petition. An examination of the petition reveals that Collins was dissatisfied with the services of his court-appointed counsel. The trial court denied the petition and Collins was subsequently convicted and sentenced. Although Collins filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying habeas corpus relief, that notice did not specify the nature of the order being appealed. On February 22, 1989, this court ordered Collins to file an amended notice. No response to this order was received until December 22, 1989.

¶3Habeas corpus is not the authorized method for challenging the adequacy of counsel’s representation. State v. Broom, 523 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Generally such an argument is presented postjudgment, using the procedures governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. An unsuccessful ruling may thereafter be appealed. Conceivably, a defendant could petition this court for certio-rari review of a pretrial order involving his right to counsel. However, such proceedings most commonly involve a trial court’s interference with the right of a party to secure counsel of his choice. See, e.g., DeArce v. State, 405 So.2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We would discourage use of the writ to review every grievance between a defendant and his court-appointed counsel; certainly, Collins’s scattershot and con-clusory petition fails to justify such an *1277extraordinary remedy. In any event, this particular petition became moot with the imposition of sentence.

¶4Further complicating matters is Collins’s attempt to raise similar sixth amendment issues by interjecting additional facts directly within the notice of appeal. The trial court is the proper forum for initial consideration of such claims. Accordingly, our dismissal is without prejudice to Collins to file a sworn motion in circuit court, following the procedures outlined in rule 3.850.

¶5Appeal dismissed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
/559/so2d/1276 · .json · Public domain