Court Opinion

ID: 4424354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-09 16:03:01.79254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:04.492954
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                         No. 1D18-3695
                 _____________________________

CARLOS M. MAXWELL,

    Appellant,

    v.

MARK S. INCH, Secretary,
Florida Department of
Corrections,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County.
John C. Cooper, Judge.

                           August 9, 2019

PER CURIAM.

    Appellant appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus on multiple grounds. Finding no merit in his claims,
we affirm.

     A petition for habeas corpus is intended to address issues
regarding a defendant’s incarceration. Farrell v. State, 62 So. 3d
20, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). It may not be used to collaterally
attack a judgment and sentence. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d
1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004). Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining
review of issues which were raised, could have been raised, or
should have been raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction
proceedings. See Zuluaga v. Dep’t of Corrs., 32 So. 3d 674, 676-77
(Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

     Here, Appellant challenges the validity and sufficiency of the
evidence, the authority of the court to impose the judgment and
sentence, and the constitutionality of his conviction. These claims
should or could have been raised on direct appeal, or in a rule 3.850
motion for post-conviction relief. Therefore, a petition for writ of
habeas corpus was an improper method for requesting relief. Even
if the claims raised in the petition were treated as filed properly in
a post-conviction motion, the claims would be time-barred under
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

    AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Carlos M. Maxwell, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

                                  2