Rozzelle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rozzelle v. State

119 So. 3d 493, 2013 WL 3866721, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11849

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 2013

DocketNo. 1D13-2639

StatusPublished

This text of 119 So. 3d 493 (Rozzelle 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

Rozzelle v. State, 119 So. 3d 493, 2013 WL 3866721, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11849 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner challenges his judgment and sentence in Okaloosa County Circuit court case number 98-CF-1143. The petition is dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) (reiterating that habeas corpus cannot be used to litigate issues that could have been or were raised on direct appeal or in postconviction motions).

Due to petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence, this court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (requiring that courts “first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence.”). Petitioner’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.

As such, because petitioner’s continued and repeated attacks on his conviction and sentence have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this court concerning Okaloosa County Circuit court case number 98-CF-1143. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any [494]*494future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Petitioner is warned that any filings which violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner challenges his judgment and sentence in Okaloosa County Circuit court case number 98-CF-1143. The petition is dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) (reiterating that habeas corpus cannot be used to litigate issues that could have been or were raised on direct appeal or in postconviction motions).

Due to petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence, this court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (requiring that courts “first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence.”). Petitioner’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.

As such, because petitioner’s continued and repeated attacks on his conviction and sentence have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this court concerning Okaloosa County Circuit court case number 98-CF-1143. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any [494]*494future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Petitioner is warned that any filings which violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 3d 493, 2013 WL 3866721, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rozzelle-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack