Dinkins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dinkins v. State

162 So. 3d 2, 2014 WL 714484, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2583

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 2014

DocketNo. 4D13-1388

StatusPublished

This text of 162 So. 3d 2 (Dinkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dinkins v. State, 162 So. 3d 2, 2014 WL 714484, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2583 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We summarily affirm the circuit court’s denial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus which attempted to challenge his 1999 conviction in the underlying case. The post-conviction challenge was untimely, successive, and proeedurally barred. The trial court properly treated the petition as a rule 3.860 motion for post-conviction relief and then rejected the claims. Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).

Appellant attempted to raise the procedurally barred claims that he was convicted of an uncharged offense through a defective information, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that his conviction was based on fraudulent tes[3]*3timony. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). This Court rejected the first two points when it affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s 2008 rule 3.850 motion. Dinkins v. State, 7 So.3d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). See Steed v. State, 120 So.3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (characterizing the claims as frivolous). This Court subsequently affirmed the denial of appellant’s second rule 3.850 motion, which was untimely and meritless. Dinkins v. State, 125 So.3d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Based on appellant’s history of litigating untimely and frivolous claims, the Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures, including forfeiture of gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Appellant is cautioned that further frivolous filing may result in additional sanctions such as a bar on pro se filing in this court. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed. Appellant referred for consideration of disciplinary procedures.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We summarily affirm the circuit court’s denial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus which attempted to challenge his 1999 conviction in the underlying case. The post-conviction challenge was untimely, successive, and proeedurally barred. The trial court properly treated the petition as a rule 3.860 motion for post-conviction relief and then rejected the claims. Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).

Appellant attempted to raise the procedurally barred claims that he was convicted of an uncharged offense through a defective information, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that his conviction was based on fraudulent tes[3]*3timony. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). This Court rejected the first two points when it affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s 2008 rule 3.850 motion. Dinkins v. State, 7 So.3d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). See Steed v. State, 120 So.3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (characterizing the claims as frivolous). This Court subsequently affirmed the denial of appellant’s second rule 3.850 motion, which was untimely and meritless. Dinkins v. State, 125 So.3d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Based on appellant’s history of litigating untimely and frivolous claims, the Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures, including forfeiture of gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Appellant is cautioned that further frivolous filing may result in additional sanctions such as a bar on pro se filing in this court. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed. Appellant referred for consideration of disciplinary procedures.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 3d 2, 2014 WL 714484, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinkins-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack