Opinion ID: 1621070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: right to habeas corpus and access to the courts

Text: Article I, section 13, of the Florida Constitution provides: The writ of habeas corpus shall be grantable of right, freely and without cost. It shall be returnable without delay, and shall never be suspended unless, in case of rebellion or invasion, suspension is essential to the public safety. The right to habeas corpus is a basic guarantee of Florida law, Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 616 (Fla.1992), and the writ may be issued by this Court, a district court, or a circuit court. See art. V, §§ 3(b)(9), 4(b)(3), 5(b), Fla. Const. This Court has explained that both simplicity and fairness are equally promoted by the right to habeas corpus relief that emanates from the Florida Constitution and has been partially embodied within Rule 3.850. Art. I, § 13, Fla. Const.; [ State v. ] Bolyea , 520 So.2d [562] at 563 [Fla. 1988]. The fundamental guarantees enumerated in Florida's Declaration of Rights should be available to all through simple and direct means, without needless complication or impediment, and should be fairly administered in favor of justice and not bound by technicality. Haag, 591 So.2d at 616. Although the right, like any other constitutional right, is subject to certain reasonable limitations consistent with the full and fair exercise of the right, the limitations must not be applied harshly or contrary to fundamental principles of fairness. Id. [3] We have always been willing to entertain constitutional issues raised via application for a writ of habeas corpus, access to which is guaranteed by the Florida Constitution, especially in a death penalty context where our obligation for review is heightened. In fact, over the last several years we have reviewed dozens of habeas petitions filed in this Court asserting rights under a retroactive application of the decisions in Ring and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Further, article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution provides that [t]he courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay. This Court has a responsibility under this provision to ensure every citizen's access to the courts. See Lussy v. Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, 828 So.2d 1026 (2002). To establish an unconstitutional denial of access to courts, an individual does not have to show that a statute or rule produces a procedural hurdle which is absolutely impossible to surmount, only one which is significantly difficult. Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521, 527 (Fla.2001). In the case at hand the petitioner asserts that his conviction and imprisonment are unlawful because they are based upon the admission of evidence that the United States Supreme Court has held is violative of the United States Constitution. In order to resolve this claim the retroactivity of the Supreme Court's decision must be determined. Our rules provide that the petitioner cannot assert his claim in the trial court until retroactivity is determined. Essentially, by holding that habeas is also unavailable to resolve this issue, we would be saying that the petitioner has no place to go to have his contention resolved. Presumably, under that scenario, he could be executed and never have his claim resolved. Of course, in Witt and countless other cases we have recognized such a scenario does not make sense, and we have made habeas available to resolve such important constitutional issues. In this way we have avoided a direct confrontation with the constitutional provisions discussed above.