Houghtaling v. State, 95-02162
| Decision Date | 23 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-02162,95-02162 |
| Citation | 670 So.2d 1019 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D519 Dion Lee HOUGHTALING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Darryl C. Casanueva, Judge.
Appellant Pro Se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michele Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Dion Houghtaling appeals from the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Houghtaling argues, and we agree, that the petition should have been treated as a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and considered on its merits.
The petition is simply an incorrectly styled motion for postconviction relief. The motion satisfies the procedural requirements of Rule 3.850, contains a proper oath, was filed within the prescribed two-year period, and, in fact, mirrors the official form for postconviction relief provided at Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. The only infirmity we detect is the styling of the motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In an appended memorandum of law, Houghtaling requested the trial court to treat the petition, if appropriate, as a motion for postconviction relief. We find the trial court's summary denial a response to form rather than substance.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to treat Houghtaling's petition as a timely filed motion for postconviction relief. See generally Miller v. State, 617 So.2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Lemus v. State, 585 So.2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...Jackson's petition as a postconviction motion timely filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, see Houghtaling v. State , 670 So. 2d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ("[W]e reverse and remand for the trial court to treat Houghtaling's petition as a timely filed motion for postconvi......
-
McCray v. State
...2005) (explaining that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not a substitute for a proper postconviction motion); Houghtaling v. State, 670 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (explaining that a petition for writ of habeas corpus that satisfies the requirements of rule 3.850 should be treated ......
-
Davis v. State, 2D14–1413.
...the procedural requirements under that rule. See Franklin v. State, 31 So.3d 948, 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing Houghtaling v. State, 670 So.2d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ).As in Franklin, Davis's motion was timely, under oath, and raised claims that would be appropriate in a rule 3.850......
- Robinson v. State, 94-02829