Adam Murray Costello has filed a habeas corpus petition asking a Florida court to overturn his conviction and release him from prison. A habeas corpus petition is a legal request that challenges whether someone is being held in prison legally. Costello argues that his conviction is unlawful because the State of Florida failed to properly charge him with a crime in the first place.
Here’s what his petition says — in simple terms.
Why He Filed This Petition
Costello says that when he pleaded no contest back in 2018, he did so based on charging documents (called an “information”) that were legally defective. He argues that the State:
- Failed to include essential elements of the crimes they accused him of,
- Used outdated or incorrect versions of the law,
- Charged multiple unrelated acts as one crime, and
- Increased his potential punishment using facts that were never charged, proven, or admitted.
Costello claims these errors deprived the court of the legal authority (jurisdiction) to convict and sentence him. If that’s true, the conviction would be considered void, not just incorrect.
Background of the Case
- Costello was charged with two crimes:
- Leaving the scene of a crash involving death
- Tampering with evidence
- He took a no-contest plea.
- He received 10.5 years for the first charge and 5 years for the second, served at the same time.
- He did not file a direct appeal but later filed several post-conviction motions.
- After hearings and appeals, those motions were denied, leading him to file this new petition.
Costello’s Main Arguments
1. The State Left Out Essential Parts of the Crime in Count One (Leaving the Scene of a Crash)
Costello says that the charging document was missing five of the six elements required to legally accuse someone of “leaving the scene of a crash involving death.”
He claims the State:
Used the wrong version of the law
The charge said Costello “knew or should have known a crash occurred.”
But Florida law at the time of the incident required actual knowledge, not “should have known.”
In other words, the law said the State must prove he truly knew a crash happened — not that he should have known it.
Left out the requirement that he knew the victim was injured or dead
The State must allege, in writing, that the driver knew (or should have known) the victim was hurt or killed. Costello says this was missing entirely.
Left out the key word: “willfully”
Florida law says the only crime in this statute is “willfully leaving” the scene after knowing a crash occurred.
Costello’s charge did not allege that he acted “willfully,” which he says means they never actually charged him with the real crime defined by law.
Never alleged he caused the victim’s death — even though his sentence was increased as if he did
Costello was given 120 “victim injury points” at sentencing, increasing his potential prison time. But he says the State never alleged in writing that he caused the death, and he never admitted to it.
Never specified which impact he supposedly knew caused the death
The crash involved multiple impacts with different objects (motorcycle, median curb, sign, tree).
Costello argues that the law requires prosecutors to specify which impact caused the fatal injury — and that they failed to do this.
2. The Tampering Charge (Count Two) Also Left Out Required Elements
They increased his sentencing range without alleging the required facts
Like Count One, the State added victim-injury points to the tampering charge, which raised the minimum sentence above the normal maximum.
Costello argues this violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s rule in Apprendi, which says anything that increases a sentence must be:
- charged in writing,
- proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or
- admitted by the defendant.
He says none of that happened.
Count Two Combined Three Separate Crimes Into One
The charging document listed three different acts:
- deleting Facebook information,
- tampering with a cell phone,
- tampering with a DVR.
These events were weeks apart. Costello argues these are three totally separate offenses and cannot legally be combined into a single count. Combining them, he says, violates due process because it denies clear notice of what exact crime he was being charged with.
3. Because Both Charges Were Defective, the Court Had No Authority to Convict Him
Costello argues that when a charging document is missing essential elements, it fails to charge any crime at all.
Florida courts have ruled that:
- A conviction based on such a document is void.
- A void conviction can be challenged at any time.
- A void conviction means the court never had jurisdiction (legal authority) to act.
Costello claims that since both counts were defective, the entire charging document is void and therefore:
- the court never had jurisdiction,
- the judgment is invalid, and
- he must be released.
What Costello Wants
He asks the court to:
- Grant the writ of habeas corpus
or - Grant any other relief the court finds appropriate — ideally meaning release from prison.
In Simple Terms
Costello is saying:
“The State charged me incorrectly, left out essential elements, used the wrong version of the law, and enhanced my punishment using facts never charged or proven. Because of these errors, the court never had the legal authority to convict me. I am being held illegally and should be released.”