Whitfield v. Department of Corrections
202 So. 3d 116
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Whitfield was convicted by a jury in Orange County of two counts of sexual battery with either use/threat of a deadly weapon or use of physical force likely to cause serious personal injury; additional convictions not challenged here.
- This court previously affirmed Whitfield’s convictions and sentences without opinion.
- Whitfield filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court seeking relief on the ground that the charging information was fundamentally defective for failing to identify the deadly weapon and that the State presented no evidence of a deadly weapon at trial.
- The trial court denied the petition on the ground that Whitfield was incarcerated in a different county (Suwannee County) when he filed the petition.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed the denial, concluding the trial court reached the correct result but relied on the wrong rationale, and affirmed the denial on alternative grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the information was fundamentally defective for failing to describe the deadly weapon | Whitfield: information failed to specify the type of deadly weapon, rendering it fundamentally defective | State: information referenced the correct statutory section, alleged date/manner, lack of consent, and alleged use/threat of a deadly weapon or force likely to cause serious injury, providing adequate notice | Held: Information was sufficient; failure to specify the weapon type was not significant |
| Whether habeas corpus was the proper vehicle to challenge sufficiency of evidence supporting deadly-weapon element | Whitfield: alleges no evidence at trial showed use of a deadly weapon | State: such sufficiency claims must be raised on direct appeal, not by habeas | Held: Habeas is improper for raising issues that were or should have been raised on direct appeal; Whitfield’s sufficiency claim is barred |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition because Whitfield was incarcerated in another county | Whitfield: petition should proceed in the county of conviction (Orange County) | State: (trial court relied on Whitfield’s location to deny) | Held: Trial court applied wrong rationale; venue should have been the county of conviction, but denial affirmed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisi v. State, 119 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (habeas attacking conviction must be brought in circuit that rendered judgment)
- Galloway v. State, 931 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (same rule on proper venue for habeas petitions)
- Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1988) (appellate courts may affirm correct result despite erroneous trial-court reasoning)
- Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1987) (habeas is not a vehicle for re-litigating issues that were or should have been raised on direct appeal)
- McClamrock v. State, 374 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (failure to state type of deadly weapon in information does not render it vague where essential elements are otherwise alleged)