Henry v. Santana

• Decision Date: 28 April 2011
• Docket Number: No. SC09–1027.,SC09–1027.
• Parties: Mark HENRY, Warden, etc., Petitioner,v.Runner O. SANTANA, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

62 So.3d 1122

Mark HENRY, Warden, etc., Petitioner,

v.Runner O. SANTANA, Respondent.

No. SC09–1027.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 28, 2011.

Jennifer Alani Parker, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Beverly Bartlett Brewster and Carolyn J. Mosely, Assistant General Counsels, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.Henry G. Gyden of Swope, Rodante, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Respondent.PERRY, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Santana v. Henry, 12 So.3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Pope v. State, 898 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

The issue presented is whether a court may sua sponte dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which a prisoner is seeking immediate release, based upon the petitioner's failure to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies. As further explained below, we hold that such a petition may not be dismissed on such grounds where the issue of the petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies has not been raised by the parties.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 24, 2008, Santana, an inmate, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court in Jackson County, alleging that he was entitled to immediate release. He filed the petition against Mark Henry, warden of the facility in Jackson County where he was housed. Santana's claim concerned the sentences that were imposed on October 4, 2007, following his violation of probation (VOP). The relevant facts are set forth in the district court opinion below:

Runner O. Santana appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging “that he is entitled to immediate release when properly credited with time served” and requesting “issuance of an Order com[m]anding the Florida Department of Corrections ... to immediately release” him. Without prior notice to the parties or input from them, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition. It reasoned, in part, that Mr. Santana failed to exhaust administrative remedies, although the Department of Corrections (DOC) never raised this below....

The petition below alleges that, after his probation (in three separate cases) was revoked, Mr. Santana was sentenced anew on October 4, 2007, receiving three concurrent prison sentences. In case No. 95–CF–4926, the petition alleges, he was sentenced to six years in prison with credit for 2,023 days, to be followed by two years' probation; in case No. 96–CF–9601 to 60.75 months with credit for 831 days; and in case No. 96–CF–10668 to six years with credit for 1682 days. In addition, against each sentence, the petition alleges, he was awarded “credit for time served at the State Hospital,” and a separate credit for 142 days for time spent in jail before the revocation hearing....

Attached to the petition are the sentencing documents, as well as a transcript of the sentencing hearing.Santana v. Henry, 12 So.3d 843, 844–45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (footnotes omitted).

The district court framed the issue before it narrowly, as follows:

At issue is whether the habeas court properly dismissed the petition on its own motion without hearing from the authorities alleged to hold the petitioner unlawfully. We are not concerned here with mere conditions of confinement, or gain-time calculations not affecting DOC's current right to hold the petitioner, or anything less than a state prisoner's alleged right to immediate release from custody.

Id. at 845–46 (citations omitted). The district court then addressed the traditional role of the writ of habeas corpus versus the role of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and held that the trial court erred in dismissing Santana's habeas petition on the basis of a technicality not raised by the parties—i.e., Santana's failure to allege that he had exhausted his administrative remedies:

In any event, we hold the trial court erred by dismissing Mr. Santana's petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis of a technicality—an assumed pleading defect—that was not raised by the parties. It is not clear DOC would have defended in this fashion, left to its own devices. “A trial judge may not sua sponte dismiss an action based on affirmative defenses not raised by proper pleadings.” Liton Lighting v. Platinum Television Group, Inc., 2 So.3d 366, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Santana, 12 So.3d at 847–48 (citations omitted). The district court ruled as follows:

Mindful that the “writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action,” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290–91, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969), we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court issue an order to show cause to the Department of Corrections before proceeding further.

Santana, 12 So.3d at 844–45 (citations omitted). The district court certified conflict with Pope v. State, 898 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). ¹ DOC sought review in this Court, which was granted.

ANALYSIS

The writ of habeas corpus, or the Great Writ, is a high prerogative writ and, when properly issued, supersedes all other writs. State ex rel. Perky v. Browne, 105 Fla. 631, 142 So. 247, 248 (1932). The writ, which literally means “that you have the body,” is a writ of inquiry and has traditionally been used to compel the custodian of the prisoner to bring the body of the prisoner into court so that the legality of the detention might be tested. This Court in State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454, 152 So. 207 (1933), addressed the deep roots of the writ in Anglo–American jurisprudence:

The great writ, known commonly by the name of “habeas corpus,” was a high prerogative writ known to the common law, the object of which was the liberation of those who were imprisoned without sufficient cause. See Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. (U.S.) 193, 7 L.Ed. 650 [ (1830) ].

It is a writ of inquiry upon matters of which the state itself is concerned in aid of right and liberty. State ex rel. Lasserre v. Michel, 105 La. 741, text 747, 30 So. 122, 54 L.R.A. 927; Ex parte Coupland, 26 Tex. 386.

The name of the writ is “habeas corpus ad subjiciendum et recipiendum.” It is not an action or suit, but is a summary remedy open to the person detained. It is civil rather than criminal in nature and is a legal and not equitable remedy. See Ex parte Watkins, supra; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch (U.S.) 75, 2 L.Ed. 554 [ (1807) ].

... [W]hile the writ had been in use in England from remote antiquity, it was often assailed by kings who sought tyrannical power and the benefits of the writ were in a great degree eluded by time-serving judges who assumed a discretionary power in awarding or refusing it and were disposed to support royal and ministerial usurpations. Owing to such abuses, the writ became powerless to release persons imprisoned without any cause assigned. In the fight by the people against the abuses of the writ, petitions of rights were submitted to the king, and during the reign of Charles I, A.D. 1641, provisions were enacted intended to make the writ effectual. These activities were, however, in vain. At last, in 1679, the Statute 31 Chas. II, chap. 2, was enacted. That act is known as the [H]abeas [C]orpus [A]ct. That act has been substantially incorporated into the jurisprudence of every state in the Union and the right to it secured by their Constitutions. The Constitution of the United States provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in certain circumstances. Article 1, § 9, par. 2, U.S. Const.

....

The great writ of habeas corpus is the one mentioned in Magna Charta in the year 1215; the writ which alone was the subject of the acts of 16 Chas. I and 31 Chas. II. It was the writ referred to in the Declaration of Independence and secured to the people of this country by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the different states.

Fabisinski, 152 So. at 209–10.² This Court subsequently in Allison v. Baker, 152 Fla. 274, 11 So.2d 578 (1943), reiterated the basic purpose of the writ:

The writ of habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ of ancient origin designed to obtain immediate relief from unlawful imprisonment without sufficient legal reasons. Essentially, it is a writ of inquiry and is issued to test the reasons or grounds of restraint and detention. The writ is venerated by all free and liberty loving people and recognized as a fundamental guaranty and protection of their right of liberty.Id. at 579.³

Given the basic purpose and fundamental importance of the writ, this Court has long recognized the necessity of informality and tolerance with regard to the pleading requirements for the writ:

The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right. It is sometimes issued upon very informal application. Ex parte Pells, 28 Fla. 67, 9 So. 833 [ (1891) ]. Neither the right to the writ nor the right to be discharged from custody in a proper case is made to depend upon meticulous observance of the rules of pleading. The purpose of bringing the petitioner before the court is to inquire into the legality of his detention, and if during the proceedings it appears formally or informally to the court's satisfaction that the person is unlawfully deprived of his liberty and is illegally detained in custody against his will he will be discharged.

Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5, 112 So. 289, 291–92 (1927). This Court has emphasized this need for informality repeatedly:

[H]istorically, habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ. It is as old as the common law itself and is an integral part of our own democratic process. The procedure for the granting of this particular writ is not to be circumscribed by hard and fast rules or technicalities which often accompany our...