Van Poyck v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Van Poyck v. State

816 So. 2d 208, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6155, 2002 WL 882437

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-1863

StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 208 (Van Poyck 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

Van Poyck v. State, 816 So. 2d 208, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6155, 2002 WL 882437 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is barred as successive. See, e.g., Walker v. State, 814 So.2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). “The defendant is abusing the judicial process by filing successive motions that attempt to litigate issues that were, could, or should have been raised either on direct appeal or in his previous motions.” Duncan v. State, 728 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is barred as successive. See, e.g., Walker v. State, 814 So.2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). “The defendant is abusing the judicial process by filing successive motions that attempt to litigate issues that were, could, or should have been raised either on direct appeal or in his previous motions.” Duncan v. State, 728 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 208, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6155, 2002 WL 882437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-poyck-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack