DEUS v. STATE (2025)

In 2011, Appellant Frantz Deus was convicted of second-degree murder and armed robbery with a weapon. He was sentenced to thirty years as a habitual violent felony offender with a fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence running consecutively on each count. Since that time, he has unsuccessfully sought direct and post-conviction relief.¹ See Deus v. State, 100 So. 3d 702, 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Deus v. State, 181 So. 3d 1249, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Deus v. State, 272 So. 3d 770, 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). He has unsuccessfully petitioned for habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel with our Court. Deus v. State, 122 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

In 2024, Deus filed a petition for habeas corpus with the trial court. He sought permission to file a belated 3.850 motion claiming neither he nor his attorney had ever filed any post-conviction motions or petitions. Treating the petition as a Rule 3.850, the trial court denied as time barred and successive. Deus appeals this order.

“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.” Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004). See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(m) (“An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this rule shall not be entertained if it appears ․ that the court has denied the applicant relief ․”). “Nor may habeas corpus be used as a substitute for an otherwise procedurally barred motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850.” La-Casse v. Inch, 307 So. 3d 921, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). “Therefore, the trial court can treat the improper habeas corpus petition as the proper remedy, a Rule 3.850 Motion.” Craig v. State, 45 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). “Appellate courts will uphold the trial court's denial of such motions if the claims presented are either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.” Id.

We affirm. Any such motion was untimely and procedurally barred. Barnard v. State, 949 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Deus’ assertion that no post-conviction motion has been filed is conclusively refuted by the record.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   He also filed a motion to correct illegal sentence. The trial court denied the motion, but Deus did not appeal this ruling.

PER CURIAM.