Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

876 So. 2d 1233

Docket No. 5D03-3955.

Washington v. State

Henry WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 11, 2004.

Rehearing Denied July 15, 2004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2004-06-11

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 2006

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A petition for habeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment and sentence because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 has superseded habeas corpus as the only means to raise such issues.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Richardson v. State

Relies on 878 So. 2d 1236 - Baker v. State · State v. Spencer · 792 So. 2d 447 - Hall v. Moore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-06-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Henry Washington, Orlando, pro se.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela D. McCravy, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

¶3SHARP, W., J.

¶4Washington appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus in which he seeks to collaterally attack his judgment and sentence for burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools and petit *1234 theft,[1] He was tried on January 20, 2000 and was found guilty on all three charges. We affirm.

¶5The basis for our denial is primarily procedural. A petition for habeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment and sentence because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 has superceded habeas corpus as the only means to raise such issues. See Baker v. State,878 So.2d 1236, 2004 WL 439879 (Fla. March 11, 2004); Spratling v. State,851 So.2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

¶6More importantly, the petition is successive and thus an abuse of process. See Spaziano v. State,545 So.2d 843 (Fla.1989); Torres v. State,554 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). After Washington appealed from the criminal judgment and this court affirmed without opinion,[2] he filed a motion for post-conviction relief, asserting twenty grounds for finding ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court summarily denied some, conducted an evidentiary hearing on one ground, and denied relief on that ground. He appealed and this court affirmed without opinion.[3] In this petition, Washington either re-states many of the issues pertaining to ineffective assistance of trial counsel presented in his prior 3.850 proceeding, or grounds which could or should have been addressed in the previous Rule 3.850 motion.

¶7We caution Washington against filing additional successive and improper collateral attacks on this criminal judgment. If he persists, this court may bar him from filing any additional pro se pleadings in this court seeking to collaterally attack the judgment and sentences. See State v. Spencer,751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).

¶8AFFIRMED.

¶9SAWAYA, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur.

NOTES

¶10[1] §§ 810.02(1), 810.06, 812.014(1), Fla. Stat. (1999).

¶11[2] See Washington v. State,792 So.2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

¶12[3] Ibid.

/876/so2d/1233 · .json · Public domain