WILLIAMS v. HICKS (2020)

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315, we summarily affirm the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's petition for habeas corpus. The trial court was not the sentencing court, so it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition, which asserted claims ostensibly cognizable under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004) (“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.”); see also id. at 1239 (explaining that rule 3.850 “essentially transferred consideration of these traditional habeas claims from the court having territorial jurisdiction over the prison where the prisoner is detained to the jurisdiction of the sentencing court”); cf. Epps v. McNeil, 37 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition for want of jurisdiction because it sought relief provided by rules 3.800 and 3.850 but was not filed in the sentencing court); Zuluaga v. Dep't of Corr., 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (same).

Summarily Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

B.L. Thomas, Bilbrey, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.