The opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 23, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1276
Lower Tribunal No. F96-12195
________________
Vincent Brown,
Petitioner,
vs.
State of Florida,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.
Vincent Brown, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for petitioner.
Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Vincent Brown files this petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging he
has done so to correct a “manifest injustice” related to his convictions and
life sentences for three counts of armed robbery in circuit court case number
F96-12195. We affirmed the judgments and sentences in 2001. Brown v.
State, 798 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Since that time, Brown acknowledges that he “has engaged in a litany
of pro se postconviction pleadings to the point of being pro se banned in the
trial court.” Indeed, the trial court, in a July 2016 order, prohibited Brown
from proceeding pro se in circuit court case number F96-12195.
Upon our review, we determine that Brown filed the instant original
proceeding in a rather transparent attempt to circumvent the trial court’s bar
order, which requires any pleading or other document filed in the trial court
be reviewed and signed by a Florida Bar member in good standing.
Instead of filing an original proceeding with this court seeking habeas
corpus relief, Brown is instead required to seek relief in the first instance by
way of a motion filed in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850 or 3.800. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla.
2004) (“‘The remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for
post-conviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.’
Nor can habeas corpus be used as a means to seek a second appeal or to
2
litigate issues that could have been or were raised in a motion under rule
3.850.”) (quoting Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA
1996)); Brown v. State, 316 So. 3d 743, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“[A] petition
for writ of habeas corpus is not a substitute for a postconviction motion under
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or 3.850”) (quoting Lindo v.
State, 981 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)).
We do not reach the merits of any claim raised in the instant petition,
nor offer any opinion whether said claims are procedurally barred. Instead,
we dismiss the instant petition without prejudice to the filing of a proper and
timely motion in the trial court which, consistent with the trial court’s 2016
order barring Brown from proceeding pro se, requires that any such motion
be reviewed and signed by a Florida Bar member in good standing.
Petition dismissed.
3