DOAK 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, A.D. 2005 DAVID R. DOAK, ** Appellant, vs. ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. CASE NO. 3D05-1467 ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 05-16685 ** Opinion filed September 21, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline Hogan Scola, Judge. David R. Doak, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Barker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SHEPHERD, CORTIÃ AS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ. PER CURIAM. and John D. Petitioner, David R. Doak, appeals the trial court s summary denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, Petitioner raised the following eight claims: (1) he was tried and convicted by a contaminated juror; (2) his right to discovery was violated; (3) his counsel failed to procure a DNA expert and familiarize himself with DNA evidence; (4) his counsel failed to investigate alternate theories of defense including insanity by intoxication; (5) the trial court erred in determining that statements made by a co-defendant fell within the excited utterance hearsay exception; (6) the trial court erred in allowing a taped statement to be introduced as a past recollection recorded; (7) the trial allowing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence; court erred in and (8) the trial court erred in allowing prejudicial and inadmissible evidence to taint his trial. In response to Petitioner s appeal, the State contends that the trial court properly denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction since the he was convicted in the Sixth Judicial Circuit therein. in Pinellas We affirm County, the Florida, trial requiring court s order venue on that to lie basis, without prejudice to refile the claims in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida. We express no opinion on the merits of Petitioner s claims. Affirmed. 2 3

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.