REGGIE FARRIOR
v.
RICKY D. DIXON, SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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.
A habeas corpus petition may be dismissed when it seeks relief that would be untimely as a postconviction motion, raises claims that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, or constitutes a second or successive motion without new grounds for relief.
[1] A trial court may dismiss a habeas corpus petition without transfer when the relief sought would be untimely as a postconviction motion, raises claims that could have bee…
[2] An inmate may be referred for disciplinary sanctions under Florida Statute section 944.279 for filing a frivolous or malicious appeal without requiring a Spencer order.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“a trial court may dismiss, rather than transfer, a habeas petition when the petitioner seeks relief that '(1) would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850, (2) raise claims that could have been raised at trial or, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence, or (3) would be considered a second or successive motion under rule 3.850 that either fails to allege new or different grounds for relief that were known or should have been known at the time the first motion was filed.'”
Court's explanation of grounds for dismissing habeas petitions, citing Baker v. State
Farrior filed his fourth collateral attack on a 2010 judgment and sentence from Pinellas County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed his habeas …
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Farrior appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Finding no error by the circuit court, we affirm. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1246 (Fla. 2004) (explaining that a trial court may dismiss, rather than transfer, a habeas petition when the petitioner seeks relief that “(1) would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850, (2) raise claims that could have been raised at trial or, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence, or (3) would be considered a second or successive motion under rule 3.850 that either fails to allege new or different grounds for relief that were known or should have been known at the time the first motion was filed.” ); Zuluaga v. Dep’t of Corrs., 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
This is the fourth petition Farrior has filed in this Court collaterally attacking his judgment and sentence imposed by the Pinellas County Circuit Court following a 2010 jury trial. See Farrior v. State, 1D19–4158 (dismissing mandamus petition by order); Farrior v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 327 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (affirming order dismissing habeas petition); Farrior v. State, 343 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (dismissing mandamus petition as moot).
The Court finds that this appeal is frivolous and refers Farrior to the Department of Corrections for sanctions. See §944.279, Florida Statutes (2022) (providing that “[a] prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal ... is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections”); Ponton v. Willis, 172 So. 3d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (explaining that a Spencer order is not required before referring the inmate for disciplinary action based on frivolous filing).
Farrior is warned that any future filings that this Court determines to be frivolous or malicious may result in the imposition of further sanctions, including a prohibition against any future pro se filings in this Court. AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- Heldrado Zuluaga v. State, 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- McCullough v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
- Ponton v. Warden John Willis, 172 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)