Jenkins v. Wainwright
| Decision Date | 02 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 46077,46077 |
| Citation | 322 So.2d 477 |
| Parties | Catherine JENKINS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Charles R. Trulock, Jr., of the Law Offices of Howard S. Reiss, Orlando, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and we required a return thereto. At present she is imprisoned under two convictions, one for possession of cannabis sativa and one for possession of a hallucinogenic drug. The trial court imposed judgment and consecutive sentences of five years on each count, for a total of ten years.
The post-conviction proceedings reflect a number of procedural errors, all to petitioner's detriment by counsel initially appointed by the court to represent her. Different counsel now represents petitioner before this Court and was not responsible for the following procedural errors. Following sentencing, petitioner moved to correct the two sentences imposed to a single sentence, which motion was denied. Petitioner appealed, but, on the advice of the appointed assistant public defender, dismissed that appeal and filed in lieu thereof a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850. That motion was also denied by the trial court. Counsel for petitioner failed to file an appeal from this order on petitioner's behalf but subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, seeking leave to file a delayed appeal from the order denying the aforementioned motion, asserting that the failure to file was an oversight. This petition was filed over three months after the time for an appeal of the aforementioned order had expired. The District Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 11, 1974, and no appeal was filed. A petition for writ of habeas corpus was then filed in this Court over four months after the District Court's final ruling. The issue presented by all the prior motions and petitions filed by this petitioner concerns her sentencing for multiple offenses arising out of the same incident.
We strongly emphasize to the bar of this state that once a petitioner seeks relief in a particular court by means of a petition for extraordinary writ, here habeas corpus, he has picked his forum. He is not entitled to a second or third opportunity for the same relief by the same writ in a different court. Once he has picked this forum, his remedy from an adverse decision is by the appropriate appellate process and not by another petition for an extraordinary writ. The extraordinary writ procedure is not a substitute for an appeal. This has long been the law. See, e.g., Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967); Sneed v. Mayor, 66 So.2d 865 (Fla.1953); Futch v. Johnson, 101 Fla. 328, 134 So. 791 (1931); State v. Logan, 87 Fla. 348, 100 So. 173 (1924); Dowling v. Lee, 68 Fla. 23, 66 So. 142 (1914); Ex Parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 So. 65 (1889).
In the instant case we will consider the petition for writ of habeas corpus solely because there is now a new issue, specifically the lack of proper representation. We will consider the contents of the petition on its merits because of the clear failure of petitioner's appointed counsel to file a timely appeal, not only from the trial court's decision but also from the District Court's decision on the petition for habeas corpus filed therein. Because of this failure, the merits of the issue were never presented on appeal. See Rahming v. Wainwright, 276 So.2d 474 (Fla.1973); State v. Wooden, 246 So.2d 755 (Fla.1971); Hollingshead v. Wainwright, supra. Absent this clear lack of proper representation by counsel, this Court would not have the authority to consider the merits of this petition. We could remand this cause to the District Court for its determination on the merits, but under the circumstances in this case, including an apparent conflict in District Court decisions, we believe we should dispose of this matter.
On the merits, the petitioner argues that the offenses for which she was convicted, possession of cannabis sativa and possession of a hallucinogenic drug as charged under separate counts of the information, are merely different facets of the same transaction. It is petitioner's position that she should be discharged from custody, or, alternatively, since only a single sentence was authorized, that the case should be remanded for resentencing. To support this contention, she relies on Lietch v. State, 248 So.2d 203 (Fla.App.4th 1971), Cert. den. 253 So.2d 875 (Fla.1971), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a conviction on three counts of unlawful possession of a central nervous system stimulant and a barbiturate could only result in a single sentence where the possessions occurred at the same time and place. See also Edmond v. State, 280 So.2d 449 (Fla.App.2d 1973), cert. den. 287 So.2d 690 (Fla.1973); Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469 (Fla.App.3d 1971). In addition, we note that previous decisions of this Court have been cited as adopting the single transaction rule. E.g., Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973); Cone v. State 285 So.2d 12 (Fla.1973); Williams v. State, 69 So.2d 766 (Fla.1954).
It is the respondent's position that the trial court's action in imposing two consecutive sentences is sustained by Parker v. State, 237 So.2d 253 (Fla.App.1st 1970), which conflicts with the above-cited decisions of the Fourth and Second District Courts. In that case the defendant, Parker, was charged with (1) possession of marijuana; (2) possession of a barbiturate; and (3) delivering or causing to be delivered a barbiturate, to wit, seconal. The First District Court of Appeal held that these were three separate and distinct violations of law even though all arose from a single criminal transaction or incident.
This Court has previously held in Norwood v. Mayo, 74 So.2d 370 (Fla.1954), that the forging and uttering of a forged instrument are each separate offenses and approved the imposition of consecutive sentences. Further, in Estevez v. State, 313 So.2d 692 (Fla.1975), we held that breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny are each separate offenses for which separate sentences may be imposed. We specifically said that these offenses were not 'facets of the same transaction' although they arose out of the same incident. We cited for authority our prior decision in Steele v. Mayo, 72 So.2d 386 (Fla.1954).
The United States Supreme Court, in Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958), approved the charging and sentencing of a defendant for three separate drug offenses arising out of the same incident. The defendant in Gore asserted the theory that the imposition of multiple sentences for multiple drug offenses arising out of the same incident was a violation of the double jeopardy provision of our constitution. The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tsavaris v. Scruggs
...forum. He is not entitled to a second or third opportunity for the same relief by the same writ in a different court." Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla.1975).3 Although there has been no trial, certain facts appear from the transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss and fro......
-
Dorfman v. State
...stated that our decision in Cone had been "overruled by implication" by Estevez v. State, 313 So.2d 692 (Fla.1975), and Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla.1975). However, in Gonzalez v. State, 342 So.2d 557 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), the Third District declined to vacate a general sentence, ......
-
Thomas v. State
...we attempted to deal with these problems in Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973), receded from on other grounds, Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla.1975), by drawing a distinction between common household items and devices that are per se burglary tools. This conclusion subseque......
-
Guillen v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
...so we are bound by their opinions on state law issues. Jones v. GDCP Warden, 753 F.3d 1171, 1191 (11th Cir. 2014). In Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1975), the Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant could be convicted of both possession of marijuana and possession of a hall......