BROOM V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2005 ANTHONY W. BROOM, Appellant, vs. ** ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Opinion filed August 3, 2005. CASE NO. 3D03-3029 ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-15110 ** An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alex E. Ferrer, Judge. Anthony W. Broom, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Jennifer Falcone Moore, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE, C.J., and SHEPHERD, and ROTHENBERG, JJ. ROTHENBERG, Judge. Anthony W. Broom appeals a final order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On December 9, County, Florida, the 1996, in the defendant, county who was court on of Pinellas probation for a previous crime, entered a plea of nolo contendre to the offense of driving under the influence of prescription medicine. As a result, his probation was revoked on March 26, 1997, and he was imprisoned in Miami-Dade County. On February 2, 1998, and on April 1, 1998, the defendant filed motions for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which were denied by the trial court on April 17, 1998 and November 2, 1998. On September 7, 1999, the defendant was granted a belated appeal by the Second District Court of Appeal. However, on March 21, 2000, the Second District transferred the case to the Appellate Division According to the of the defendant, Pinellas he chose not to pursue the appeal. then County became Circuit Court. frustrated and Instead, on May 24, 2001, the defendant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which was denied on May 1, 2002. On September 9, 2002, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court which was transferred to the Miami-Dade Circuit Court on May 21, 2003. On August 7, 2003, the Miami-Dade Circuit Court entered an order denying the petition on the merits. 2 The defendant now appeals the circuit court s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons expressed below, we find that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to consider the claims raised in the defendant s petition. The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration, but not when attack the validity of the judgment or sentence. the claims Murray v. Regier, 872 So. 2d 217, 223-24 (Fla. 2002)(because petition for writ of habeas corpus raised issues regarding petitioner s detention, the proper court to rule on the petition was the court where petitioner was being detained); Calloway v. State, 699 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(explaining that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review the legality of a conviction in another circuit); Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(holding that a court from one county does not have jurisdiction to hear a petition collaterally attacking a judgment and sentence from another county.) Only the court in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced has jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a judgment or sentence, and such an attack must be brought pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850, not by petition for writ of habeas corpus. 3 See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004); Borinstein v. State, 893 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Therefore, jurisdiction to the decide defendant s petition. defendant consider was the Miami-Dade the Circuit collateral Court attacks did not raised have in the Only the Pinellas County Court, where the convicted defendant s and sentenced, collateral has attacks, jurisdiction which must to be brought pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850. Accordingly, we quash the order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus, without prejudice to the defendant to seek relief pursuant to Rule 3.800 or 3.850 in Pinellas County. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
