Halyard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Halyard v. State

176 So. 3d 993

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 2015

Docket2D13-3876, 2D14-181

StatusPublished

This text of 176 So. 3d 993 (Halyard 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

Halyard v. State, 176 So. 3d 993 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Julius J. Halyard appeals two orders denying postconviction motions. We have consolidated these appeals for the purpose of issuing this opinion because the postcon-viction motions in both appeals challenge Mr. Halyard’s conviction for soliciting lewd or lascivious conduct, which resulted from his conduct in 2005. This court affirmed his direct appeal seven years ago in Halyard v. State, 982 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Hillsborough County Circuit Criminal Case Number 06-CF-2787).

We affirm without comment the postcon-viction orders that are the subject of these appeals. Mr. Halyard has had at least six previously decided, unsuccessful proceedings in this court arising from this criminal case or from civil actions that he has initiated against various parties connected to this criminal case. None of these proceedings has had merit. Although in these two appeals we did not issue orders to show why this court should not direct the clerk to reject such pleadings, see State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999), Mr. Halyard is cautioned that in any future pro se.proceeding commenced in this court related to this criminal conviction, we will first review the matter to determine whether an order to show cause should be issued. See Casey v. State, 158 So.3d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Julius J. Halyard appeals two orders denying postconviction motions. We have consolidated these appeals for the purpose of issuing this opinion because the postcon-viction motions in both appeals challenge Mr. Halyard’s conviction for soliciting lewd or lascivious conduct, which resulted from his conduct in 2005. This court affirmed his direct appeal seven years ago in Halyard v. State, 982 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Hillsborough County Circuit Criminal Case Number 06-CF-2787).

We affirm without comment the postcon-viction orders that are the subject of these appeals. Mr. Halyard has had at least six previously decided, unsuccessful proceedings in this court arising from this criminal case or from civil actions that he has initiated against various parties connected to this criminal case. None of these proceedings has had merit. Although in these two appeals we did not issue orders to show why this court should not direct the clerk to reject such pleadings, see State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999), Mr. Halyard is cautioned that in any future pro se.proceeding commenced in this court related to this criminal conviction, we will first review the matter to determine whether an order to show cause should be issued. See Casey v. State, 158 So.3d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 So. 3d 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halyard-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack