DARKINS v. STATE (2019)

After the trial court denied appellant and petitioner Glenn A. Darkins's motion to suppress evidence, Darkins, on October 15, 2018, entered a plea of guilty to two criminal counts: (i) possession with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver the controlled substance of cocaine; and (ii) resisting an officer without violence. The record before us does not reflect that Darkins's plea deal preserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his suppression motion.

Nevertheless, Darkins appealed his judgment of conviction to this Court on July 8, 2019 (3D19-1324), almost nine months after the judgment was entered. Approximately two months after filing his notice of appeal, Darkins, on September 9, 2019, also filed with this Court a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus (3D19-1820). His petition repeated the ground underlying his appeal: Darkins asserts that the trial court committed error by not suppressing the evidence produced from an allegedly illegal search and seizure. We consolidated Darkins's two cases for briefing purposes and now render this opinion adjudicating both cases.

Unless a notice of appeal is filed within thirty days of the judgment's rendition, this Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). We therefore dismiss Darkins's appeal (3D19-1324) as untimely. A petition for writ of habeas corpus may not be employed as a substitute for an appeal or for an appropriate post-conviction motion. Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 2004). We therefore deny Darkins's petition for writ of habeas corpus (3D19-1820).

Appeal dismissed; petition denied.

SCALES, J.