JAMES ROONEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Rooney appeals the denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging his 1992 convictions for arson, burglary, criminal mischief, and witness retaliation. The court affirmed the denial, finding the petition was successive and repetitive of claims previously raised and rejected in direct appeal and prior Rule 3.850 motions, and prohibited future pro se filings on these convictions.
The court held that the petition was successive and improper, that raising the same claims after they have been decided on the merits constitutes an abuse of process, and that the bar against successive and repetitive claims applies equally to habeas corpus petitions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the writ and prohibited Rooney from filing any additional pro se pleadings challenging his convictions.
[1] A habeas corpus petition is successive and improper when it raises claims that have already been considered and rejected on their merits.
[2] It is an abuse of process to continuously raise the same legal issues after they have been decided.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“It is an abuse of process to continuously raise the same issues after they have been decided on the merits.”
Establishes the core legal principle that successive filings of identical claims constitute abuse of process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRooney was convicted in 1992 of arson of a structure, burglary of a dwelling, criminal mischief, and retaliating against a state witness. He raised in…
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 Criminal Appeal Reform Act Of 1996 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Rooney appeals from a denial of his post-conviction pleading he styles as the “Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.” It is indeed “great,” in the sense of being huge in size. It consists of eighty-eight pages and numerous exhibits. It is also “great” in the sense of being greatly over-used and improper.
In this most current collateral attack on his 1992 convictions and sentences for arson of a structure, burglary of a dwelling, criminal mischief and retaliating against a state witness,1 Rooney argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons, and that the trial court erred in various ways. These arguments were raised in his direct appeal, as well as his prior Rule 3.850 motion, and were rejected by the trial court. This court affirmed his direct appeal. See Rooney v. State, 654 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). And, we refused to grant an belated appeal from the trial court’s denial of his Rule 3.850 motion. Rooney v. State, No. 96-2322 (Fla. 5th DCA, Nov. 7, 1996) (unpublished order).
This petition is successive and improper. All of Rooney’s claims about ineffective assistance of counsel raised in this pleading have been considered and rejected. It is an abuse of process to continuously raise the same issues after they have been decided on the merits. See Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 951, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 ( 1993); Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991); Adams v. State, 484 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1103, 106 S.Ct. 1506, 89 L.Ed.2d 906 (1986). This bar of successive and repetitive claims applies equally to habeas corpus petitions. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Mason v. State, 627 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Dyer v. State, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
In O’Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), we recently stated:
We direct post-conviction litigants to the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, Chapter 96-248. This Act added section 924.051(9), Florida Statutes, which provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the terms and conditions of collateral review and procedural bars to collateral review shall be strictly enforced. Further, a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding or appeal in any court is subject to having all or any part of his or her gain time forfeited. Section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes. At this point, O’Brien is filing documents faster than this court can dispose of them. Clearly, the Legislature is trying to cut down on exactly this sort of behavior. In accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act, and in order to conserve our judicial resources, we prohibit Mr. O’Brien from filing any further pro se pleadings with this court concerning his 1976/1980 convictions and sentences.
In accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act and in order to conserve our judicial resources, we prohibit Rooney from filing any additional pro se pleadings with this court seeking to challenge his convictions and sentences in Circuit Court Case No. 92-7018CFA. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the writ filed below.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . §§ 806.01(2); 810.02(1) & (3); 806.13; 914.23, Fla. Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…vides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the terms and conditions of collateral review and procedural bars to collateral review shall be strictly enforced. See, e.g., Bradley v. State, 703 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Rooney v. State, 699 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); O’Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Further, a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding or appeal in any court is subject to having all or any part of his or…
-
Bradley v. State, 703 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…t added section 924.051(9), Florida Statutes, which provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the terms and conditions of collateral review and procedural bars to collateral review shall be strictly enforced. See, e.g., Rooney v. State, 699 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); O’Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Further, a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding or appeal in any court is subject to having all or any part of his or…
-
Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…reby affirms in this case, No. 5D-907, as well. The court below was right. Defendant’s motion is successive and without merit. As our Clerk can attest, Proctor has been “filing documents faster than this court can dispose of them,” Rooney v. State, 699 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Because of that and because we found his arguments and numerous filings to be without merit, we issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (court can restrict future pro se pleadings i…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1992)
- O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Adams v. State, 484 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1986)
- Richards v. Med. Ctr. of Del. Inc., 510 U.S. 951 (U.S. 1993)
- Beavers v. Texas, 510 U.S. 951 (U.S. 1993)
- Dyer v. State, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Robinson v. Lurana Dupree Robinson, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Adams v. Wainwright, 475 U.S. 1103 (U.S. 1986)