HEAGNEY v. STATE (2023)

Appellant challenges the circuit court's summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the order below.

A jury found Appellant guilty of capital sexual battery on a person less than twelve years old. The facts of this case are found in the direct appeal record in Heagney v. State, 149 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Evidence at trial showed the victim reported being abused to the Florida Department of Children and Families. Appellant would rub the victim's private parts, stick his private parts into hers, and make her suck his private parts. During the abuse, some “stuff” would come out of her private parts, which Appellant told her was protein and good for her. The victim's testimony at trial (conducted via closed circuit television) confirmed Appellant had penetrated the victim's vagina with his fingers and penis on more than one occasion.

Consistent with the jury's verdict, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of capital sexual battery on a child less than twelve years old and sentenced him to life in prison.

On direct appeal of the judgment and sentence, Appellant argued that the trial court erred by considering expert testimony regarding the victim's ability to testify in the presence of Appellant, that the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify via closed circuit television, and that the trial court erred by allowing improper comments by the prosecutor during closing arguments. This Court affirmed the judgment and sentence. Heagney v. State, 149 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

The order now on appeal summarily denied Appellant's petition, which claimed that (1) the trial court failed to make sufficient findings about the possibility of harm to the child to reliably conclude it was necessary for the child to testify outside of Appellant's presence, (2) the trial court erred by removing him from the proceedings instead of removing the alleged victim, (3) the trial court denied him the right to confront the alleged victim on the witness stand, (4) he was denied access to counsel during the alleged victim's testimony, and (5) he was denied access to co-counsel during the alleged victim's testimony.

The lower court correctly denied Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court has held that petitions of this sort are unauthorized and subject to dismissal. See Green v. State, 975 So. 2d 1090, 1115 (Fla. 2008) (“Habeas corpus is not to be used for additional appeals of issues that could have been or were raised on appeal or in other postconviction motions.”); Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245-46 (Fla. 2004) (“[W]e will dismiss as unauthorized, habeas corpus petitions ․ that seek the kind of collateral postconviction relief available through a motion filed in the sentencing court, and which (1) would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850, (2) raise claims that could have been raised at trial or, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence, or (3) would be considered a second or successive motion under rule 3.850 ․”).

Considered under rule 3.850, Appellant's petition was untimely. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) requires motions to be brought within two years of the movant's judgment and sentence becoming final. Subsection 3.850(b)(1) allows for an exception to the two-year time limitation when “the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence ․” Id. Appellant filed his petition over seven years after the judgment and sentence became final in 2014, and he has failed to demonstrate he meets any exception to the two-year time limit.

Affirmed.

B.L. Thomas, J.

Osterhaus, C.J., and Nordby, J., concur.