CIRILO KESHUN ALLEN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Cirilo Keshun Allen petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to collaterally attack his 2002 robbery with a firearm conviction. The court dismissed the petition, finding that habeas corpus is not an appropriate vehicle for raising issues that were or should have been raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings, and determined the petition was frivolous.
Habeas corpus is not a proper vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal, were waived at trial, or could have been raised in rule 3.850 proceedings. Accordingly, Allen's petition was properly dismissed.
[1] Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues that were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal.
[2] Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues that were waived at trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been, raised in rule 3.850 proceedings.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation on habeas corpus as a collateral attack remedy and the proper scope of habeas petitions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen was convicted in 2002 of robbery with a firearm. He filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which this …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Frivolous Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Cirilo Keshun Allen petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus collaterally attacking his 2002 judgment and sentence for robbery with a firearm. We dismiss the petition because “habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been, raised in rule 3.850 proceedings.” White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 1987); Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). We also conclude that Allen’s petition is frivolous. Earlier this year, this Court affirmed an order denying Allen’s postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
See Allen v. State, 313 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (unpublished table decision). Allen is warned that any of his future filings that the Court determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2020) (providing that “[a] prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal . . . or to have brought a frivolous or malicious collateral criminal proceeding . . . is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections”). DISMISSED. ROBERTS, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodgers v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Duval County) (M.D. Fla. 2024)…plinary proceedings. Doc. 5-24 at 2; Doc. 5-25 at 2. Rodgers moved for rehearing/clarification, which the First DCA denied on March 29, 2021. Doc. 5-26 at 2–8; Doc. 5-27 at 2. The First DCA issued the mandate on April 19, 2021. See Rodgers v. State, 313 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (Table) (1D20-2460); see also Doc. 5-28 at 2. On October 7, 2021, Rodgers submitted the instant Petition to prison officials for mailing. Doc. 1 at 15. As Rodgers's convictions and sentences became final after the effective date…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)