Ruben Diaz v. State of Florida Fourth Judicial Circuit

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the petitioner must be “in custody pursuant to the state judgment that is the subject of collateral attack”
• explaining that the “core purpose of habeas review identified in Garlotte -- the shortening of the overall term of incarceration -- [was] not implicated” under the circumstances (quotations omitted)
• explaining that the “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional
• explain- ing the finding a petitioner is not “in custody” for purposes of § 2254(a) is a jurisdictional question reviewed de novo
• “Diaz’s state sentence had fully expired at the time he filed his § 2254 petition and therefore deprived the district court of jurisdiction to decide the petition’s merits.”
• “Although we broadly construe the phrase ‘in custody,’ that requirement has not been extended to cover a scenario where a petitioner suffers no ‘present restraint’ from the conviction being challenged.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).