William D. Calloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

William D. Calloway v. State

193 So. 3d 1083, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9378, 2016 WL 3364661

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 2016

Docket5D15-2044

StatusPublished

This text of 193 So. 3d 1083 (William D. Calloway 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

William D. Calloway v. State, 193 So. 3d 1083, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9378, 2016 WL 3364661 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order precluding William Calloway from future pro se filings. However, because it appears Calloway may now have a valid claim, namely that the 100 year sentence imposed on him as a juvenile constitutes an unconstitutional de facto life sentence, see Miller v. Alabama, — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) and Falcon v. State, 162 So.3d 954, 964 (Fla.2015), we do so without prejudice to Callo-way’s ability to file with the trial court a motion for the appointment of counsel to represent him on that claim. 1

AFFIRMED.

TORPY, BERGER and LAMBERT, concur.

1

. Calloway argues in his brief that he sought the appointment of counsel to represent him on his most recent postconviction filing, but that the request was denied. We can find nothing in the record to suggest that such a motion was ever filed,

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order precluding William Calloway from future pro se filings. However, because it appears Calloway may now have a valid claim, namely that the 100 year sentence imposed on him as a juvenile constitutes an unconstitutional de facto life sentence, see Miller v. Alabama, — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) and Falcon v. State, 162 So.3d 954, 964 (Fla.2015), we do so without prejudice to Callo-way’s ability to file with the trial court a motion for the appointment of counsel to represent him on that claim. 1

AFFIRMED.

TORPY, BERGER and LAMBERT, concur.

1

. Calloway argues in his brief that he sought the appointment of counsel to represent him on his most recent postconviction filing, but that the request was denied. We can find nothing in the record to suggest that such a motion was ever filed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 So. 3d 1083, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9378, 2016 WL 3364661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-d-calloway-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack