A Florida prisoner entered a plea to the hit and run statute that charged knew or should have known a crash occurred, a crime that did not exist as clarified in State v. Dorsett. The prisoner raised this error in a habeas corpus submitted in the trial court. Prior to the trial courts review, the sixth DA invoked original jurisdiction. Should the prisoner expect the petition to be granted?

Yes, the prisoner should expect the habeas corpus petition to be granted, as the State’s prosecution was based on a non-existent crime, as clarified in State v. Dorsett, and the felony hit-and-run statute requires actual knowledge of a crash. The invocation of original jurisdiction by the Sixth DA is irrelevant to the merits of the underlying legal error, and the trial court should grant the petition because the plea was entered under an unconstitutional standard of law. 

Legal Basis

  1. State v. Dorsett Established the Standard
    • The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dorsett (2015) clarified that a conviction for a felony hit-and-run charge under Section 316.027, Florida Statutes, requires proof that the driver had actual knowledge that a crash occurred.
    • This was a reversal of the standard jury instruction at the time, which used a “knew or should have known” standard.
  2. Application to the Prisoner’s Case
    • The prisoner entered a plea based on a statute that, as previously applied, included the incorrect “knew or should have known” standard.
    • Because the Florida Supreme Court later ruled this standard was an incorrect statement of the law for felony hit-and-run, the prisoner’s plea was based on an unconstitutional application of the law.
  3. Role of the Habeas Corpus Petition
    • A writ of habeas corpus is a proper legal avenue for a prisoner to challenge the lawfulness of their detention based on a fundamental error in the legal standard applied to their conviction or plea.
  4. Irrelevance of the Sixth DA’s Action
    • The Sixth District Attorney invoking original jurisdiction prior to the trial court’s review is a procedural matter related to the appellate process and does not change the fundamental legal error in the prisoner’s plea. 

Conclusion
The prisoner’s claim rests on a successful legal challenge to the standard for a felony hit-and-run charge as clarified in Dorsett. Because the prisoner’s plea was based on a standard of law that the Florida Supreme Court later determined was incorrect, the conviction is based on a fundamentally flawed legal basis. Therefore, the prisoner should expect the habeas corpus petition to be granted.