Yves J. J. Milord v. State
225 So. 3d 305
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Yves Jean Jacques Milord filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions, alleging the arrest warrant and information were fatally defective.
- Milord was convicted in Orange County but was incarcerated in Hardee County when he filed the habeas petition.
- The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that Milord should have filed in Hardee County (where he was incarcerated) rather than Orange County (where he was convicted).
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that challenges to the validity of a conviction or trial-court proceedings must be brought in the circuit court of the county that rendered the judgment of conviction (Orange County).
- Despite the trial court’s error as to venue, the appellate court affirmed because Milord’s claims were collateral attacks on his conviction and therefore cognizable, if at all, in a direct appeal or a timely Rule 3.850 postconviction motion—not by habeas corpus.
- The court noted Milord’s judgment became final in 2009, making any Rule 3.850 motion untimely and successive; he previously filed and appealed a 3.850 motion, which was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue for habeas petition attacking conviction | Milord filed in Hardee County (where incarcerated) and the petition should be heard there | State argued venue was improper in Orange County | Court: Venue for challenges to conviction is the county that rendered the judgment (Orange County); trial court erred to dismiss on Hardee-venue ground |
| Availability of habeas to attack conviction and trial errors | Milord contended habeas relief was appropriate to challenge defects in arrest warrant/charging information | State argued habeas is not a substitute for Rule 3.850 or direct appeal and such claims are procedurally barred | Court: Habeas is not available to collateral attack convictions; claims cognizable under Rule 3.850/direct appeal and here are untimely/successive — dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitfield v. Dept. of Corr., 202 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (venue for postconviction attack of conviction is the county that rendered judgment)
- Gisi v. State, 119 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (same principle on venue for habeas attacking conviction)
- Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (habeas is inappropriate to collaterally attack convictions available under rule 3.850)
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004) (habeas is not a substitute for postconviction relief under rule 3.850)
- Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1987) (habeas is not a vehicle for a second appeal of issues that were or should have been raised on direct appeal)
- Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1988) (a trial court’s decision will be affirmed if alternative theory supports it)