Court Opinion

ID: 9367652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 16:03:03.202927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.790751
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed February 1, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1068
                       Lower Tribunal No. F22-8490
                          ________________

                            Chestel Thorson,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J.
Rebull, Judge.

     Chestel Thorson, in proper person.

     Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See La-Casse v. Inch, 307 So. 3d 921, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA

2020) (“A petition for writ of habeas corpus may not be used to challenge the

legality of a defendant's judgment of conviction. A defendant must seek such

relief, if at all, through the procedure established in rule 3.850. Nor may

habeas corpus be used as a substitute for an otherwise procedurally barred

motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850.”) See also Baker v. State,

878 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 2004) (reaffirming the well-established principle

that “habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for an appropriate

motion seeking postconviction relief, ... [n]or can habeas corpus be used as

a means to seek a second appeal or to litigate issues that could have been

or were raised in a motion under rule 3.850”) (citations omitted); Beiro v.

State, 289 So. 3d 511, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (noting: “The mere

incantation of the words ‘manifest injustice’ does not make it so.”); Corner v.

State, 218 So. 3d 922, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (issuing an order directing

defendant to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro

se pleadings, noting that defendant was “attempting to use the habeas

corpus petition as a disguised rule 3.850 motion”).

                                      2