DAVID HUFFMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal denied David Huffman's petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective appellate counsel. The court reaffirmed its previous order prohibiting any further pro se attacks on his 1986 convictions and sentences, citing abuse of the right of access to the court through repeated filings over ten years.
The court denied the habeas corpus petition on the merits and reaffirmed its prior order prohibiting all further pro se attacks on Huffman's 1986 conviction and sentence. The court directed the clerk to reject for filing all notices of appeal and petitions for extraordinary relief arising from those convictions.
[1] A court may deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits when the petitioner has repeatedly presented the same issues to the court over an extended period.
[2] A petitioner may abuse the constitutional right of access to the courts by filing an excessive number of motions and petitions attacking a conviction and sentence.
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“The issues Huffman raised in his petition have been repeatedly presented to the trial court over a span of almost ten years. The trial court's order recites eighteen visits Huffman made back to the trial court or to this court in his unending attempts to attack the conviction and sentence.”
Establishes the pattern of repetitive filings over a decade that justified restricting future access
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHuffman was convicted and sentenced in 1986. Over a span of nearly ten years, he made eighteen visits to the trial court or appellate court attempting…
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 Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny on the merits this petition and amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed by David Huffman, alleging ineffectiveness of appellate counsel. In Huffman v. State, 693 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), this court affirmed a trial court order restricting further attacks on his convictions and sentences imposed in 1986. In doing so, this court observed the following:
The issues Huffman raised in his petition have been repeatedly presented to the trial court over a span of almost ten years. The trial court’s order recites eighteen visits Huffman made back to the trial court or to this court in his unending attempts to attack the conviction and sentence. There .is no question that Huffman has abused his constitutional right of access to the court and interfered with the effective administration of justice. And, there is no doubt that the volume of judicial labor which has been expended on Huffman’s pro se efforts delayed the disposition of other cases with justiciable issues filed by well-meaning litigants. Therefore, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the time has come to prohibit any further pro se attacks by Huffman on his 1986 conviction and sentence.
Therefore, consistent with our policy announced in Attwood v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we direct the clerk of this court to reject for filing all notices of appeal and petitions for extraordinary relief arising out of Huffman’s 1986 convictions. Any such papers filed in violation of this order will be automatically placed in an inactive file and any such notices of appeal received by this court from circuit courts will be summarily stricken by this court.
Habeas corpus denied.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bivens v. State, 715 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…93 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Furthermore, we direct the clerk of this court to reject for filing all pro se notices of appeal and petitions for extraordinary relief arising out of Bivens’ 1982 conviction and sentence. See Huffman v. Singletary, 696 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Should Bivens disregard either this opinion or the order of the trial court which we affirm, he may be subject to sanctions which can include the forfeiture of gain-time. See Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).…
-
Huffman v. State, 837 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…his DNA. See Knighten, 829 So. 2d at 252. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the requirements of rule 3.853. Reversed and remanded. FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . In Huffman v. Singletary, 696 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), this court prohibited Huffman from challenging his 1986 convictions in this court either by appeal or original proceeding. The motion under review in this proceeding was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853,…
-
Huffman v. State, 741 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…at restricted Huffman from filing further attacks on his 1986 convictions. See Huffman v. State, 693 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). This court has also announced that it will reject further attacks on the 1986 convictions. See Huffman v. Singletary, 696 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Because of Huffman’s continuing abuse of the judicial process, we not only affirm the order of the trial court, but also direct the clerk of this court to reject for filing all notices of appeal and petitions for extraordinary re…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Huffman v. State, 693 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Attwood v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)