Young v. State

709 So. 2d 614, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3736, 1998 WL 166594
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 9, 1998
DocketNo. 98-686
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 709 So. 2d 614 (Young 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
Young v. State, 709 So. 2d 614, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3736, 1998 WL 166594 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

In his eighth appearance in this court on this case, Rufus Young petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he is entitled to a belated appeal. He is wrong. Young was tried and convicted in 1990 of burglary of a' dwelling, grand theft, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced as an habitual felony offender to thirty years incarceration. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, he filed various post-conviction appeals in this court.1

In his latest document, Young petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming entitlement to a belated appeal by raising both old and new legal grounds. First of all, his petition is barred by the doctrine of lach-es. McCray v. State, 699 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1997). Second, his petition is successive and an abuse of process. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 680 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“Even Herman Melville had to come to an ending in Moby Dick”); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (bar of successive claims applies equally to habeas petitions). We therefore prohibit Young from filing any further pro se pleadings with this court concerning his 1990 convictions and admonish him that additional successive collateral attacks will expose him to forfeiture of gain time. See Davis v. State, 705 So.2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Bradley v. State, 703 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Rooney v. State, 699 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hall v. State, 698 So.2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); O'Brien v. State, 689 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 697 So.2d 511 (Fla.1997).

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED.

GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ. concur.

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

Related

Hough v. State
773 So. 2d 90 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
709 So. 2d 614, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3736, 1998 WL 166594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.