SWIFT v. STATE (2020)

Denied. See Sanders v. State, 903 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“We affirm the trial court's denial of [the] petition for writ of habeas corpus based on the lack of factual assertions regarding the exhaustion of his available administrative remedies.”); Pryor v. Singletary, 709 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“Affirmed without prejudice to appellant's right to reapply for habeas corpus ․ in the trial court upon a proper showing of legally sufficient grounds and exhaustion of administrative remedies.”); Moore v. Singletary, 624 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (The “petition for habeas corpus was facially insufficient in that it failed to allege that [the petitioner] had exhausted all available administrative remedies.”); see also Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 1999) (“[A] review of the instant petition suggests that the resolution of this case could very well require fact-finding, a task [appellate courts are] ill-equipped to handle. Clearly, such cases should be handled by the circuit courts.”) (internal citation omitted); In re Commitment of May, 975 So. 2d 579, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Because [the] petition presents a factual issue ․ [it should] be filed in the trial court, not the appellate court.”).

PER CURIAM.