Douglas Sinclair v. State of Florida

199 So. 3d 374, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12351, 2016 WL 4362400

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 16, 2016
• Docket: 1D16-2461
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Sinclair has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming he is being held on a void judgment because no information was pending at the time of trial. We dismiss the petition. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) (habeas corpus cannot be used to litigate issues that could have been or were raised on direct appeal or in postconviction motions).

Sinclair has raised this same argument at least five times in this court, and each time has failed to obtain relief. See Sinclair v. State, 134 So.3d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Sinclair v. State, 132 So.3d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Sinclair v. State, 147 So.3d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Sinclair v. State, 118 So.3d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Sinclair v. State, 114 So.3d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). The last time he raised this argument, we warned him that future frivolous filings could result in a prohibition on any further pro se filings. See Sinclair v. State, 132 So.3d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Accordingly, after receiving the present petition, we ordered petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings challenging his judgment and sentence. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999). Petitioner’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.

Therefore, because petitioner’s repeated attacks on his judgment and sentence have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in the court concerning Duval County Circuit Court case number 16-2000- CF-009964-A. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.