Moreno Hernandez v. State
The Third DCA denied a prohibition petition from a defendant in federal ICE custody who sought to block a County Court judge from issuing a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to bring him back for a pending misdemeanor DUI prosecution. The court held that although a County Court cannot issue the 'Great Writ' of habeas corpus (which tests the legality of detention), the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a different species that merely secures temporary custody for trial, and section 900.03(2), Florida Statutes, independently authorizes any court with criminal jurisdiction to issue writs necessary to exercise that jurisdiction, including a misdemeanor County Court lacking circuit-court designation.
Key facts
- Defendant Moreno Hernandez, held in federal ICE custody, sought to block a County Court judge from issuing a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to bring him back for trial on a pending misdemeanor DUI charge.
- The County Court issued the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to compel Hernandez's temporary transfer from federal custody to appear for prosecution, and Hernandez filed a prohibition petition challenging the judge's authority to issue it.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion fills a gap for an increasingly common scenario—state misdemeanor prosecutions where the defendant is held in federal ICE custody—by confirming that County Courts, without any circuit-capacity designation… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.