Lang v. Crews

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lang v. Crews

129 So. 3d 397, 2013 WL 6183132, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18795

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 2013

DocketNo. 1D13-4837

StatusPublished

This text of 129 So. 3d 397 (Lang v. Crews) 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

Lang v. Crews, 129 So. 3d 397, 2013 WL 6183132, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18795 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For at least the third time, James E. Lang challenges his 2001 Pinellas County conviction as invalid on grounds that he was tried without the assistance of counsel and without validly waiving his right to counsel. Lang’s claim is procedurally barred by Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004), and we DISMISS his petition for writ of habeas corpus on this basis.

The procedural bar recognized in Baker was brought to Lang’s attention in the court’s opinion disposing of his 2011 petition for writ of habeas corpus raising this same claim. Accordingly, we grant petitioner’s motion requesting that we undertake an inquiry pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2013), conclude based on that inquiry that Lang’s present petition is frivolous or malicious, and direct that a certified copy of this opinion be forwarded to his correctional institution for disciplinary procedures pur[398]*398suant to that statute and the rules of the Department of Corrections.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

For at least the third time, James E. Lang challenges his 2001 Pinellas County conviction as invalid on grounds that he was tried without the assistance of counsel and without validly waiving his right to counsel. Lang’s claim is procedurally barred by Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004), and we DISMISS his petition for writ of habeas corpus on this basis.

The procedural bar recognized in Baker was brought to Lang’s attention in the court’s opinion disposing of his 2011 petition for writ of habeas corpus raising this same claim. Accordingly, we grant petitioner’s motion requesting that we undertake an inquiry pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2013), conclude based on that inquiry that Lang’s present petition is frivolous or malicious, and direct that a certified copy of this opinion be forwarded to his correctional institution for disciplinary procedures pur[398]*398suant to that statute and the rules of the Department of Corrections.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 So. 3d 397, 2013 WL 6183132, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lang-v-crews-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack