JACK DEMPSEY PHILLIPS, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Jack Dempsey Phillips, convicted of first-degree murder in 1973, sought habeas corpus relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court denied the petition and prohibited Phillips from filing further pro se pleadings relating to his case, finding he had abused the judicial process through successive filings of nearly eighteen post-conviction motions and petitions raising identical issues.
The court denied Phillips's habeas corpus petition and held that successive motions for post-conviction relief and successive habeas corpus/certiorari petitions that effectively constitute post-conviction relief motions are procedurally barred. The court prohibited Phillips from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, or petitions relating to his underlying case without attorney review and signature.
[1] Successive motions for post-conviction relief are procedurally barred.
[2] Successive petitions for habeas corpus or writs of certiorari, which are in effect motions for post-conviction relief, are also procedurally barred.
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 defendant has abused the judicial process by filing this virtual avalanche of pleadings that attempt to relitigate the same issues ad infinitum.”
Establishes the court's finding of abuse of process through successive filings and justifies the prohibition on further pro se pleadings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillips was convicted in 1973 of first-degree murder and assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment.…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jack Dempsey Phillips seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We deny the petition.
Phillips was convicted in 1973 of first degree murder and assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Since that conviction and this court’s affirmance on direct appeal, Phillips has filed, as far as we can determine, eighteen (18) post conviction motions, appeals, petitions for writs of habe-as corpus, petitions for writs of certiorari, and motions for rehearing and clarification in this court, the Florida Supreme Court, and various federal courts including the United States Supreme Court. All of these have been denied.
As the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held, successive motions for post conviction relief are procedurally barred. See Christopher v. State, 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1986); Francois v. State, 470 So. 2d 687 (Fla.1985). Furthermore, successive filings of petitions for habeas corpus or writs of certiorari that are, in effect, motions for post conviction relief, are also procedurally barred. See Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
The defendant has abused the judicial process by filing this virtual avalanche of pleadings that attempt to relitigate the same issues ad infinitum. Accordingly, we prohibit the defendant from continuing to file any additional pro se appeals, including pleadings, motions, and petitions relating to any issue in Lower Tribunal Case No. 73-486. See O’Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA) (holding that defendant who filed multiple post conviction proceedings relating to same case was prohibited from filing any further pro se pleadings concerning that case), review denied, 697 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1997); Dennis, 685 So. 2d at 1375. Any further pleadings relating to Lower Tribunal Case No. 73-486 must be reviewed and signed by an attorney.
We caution defendant that “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 his or her gain time forfeited.” O’Brien, 689 So. 2d at 337 (citing section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997) (“All or any part of the gain-time earned by a prisoner according to the provisions of law is subject to forfeiture if such prisoner ... is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal in any court.”)).
Petition for Habeas Corpus denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacARTHUR v. Moore, 756 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…3d DCA 1994) (citations omitted). Furthermore, a petition for writ of habeas corpus that is in effect a successive motion for postconviction relief is procedurally barred. See Ali v. State, 729 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Phillips v. Singletary, 728 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Morejon v. State, 740 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also Robinson v. State, 707 So. 2d 688 (Fla.1998)(holding that defendant who seeks postconviction relief is procedurally barred from raising claims that could or should hav…
-
Walker v. State, 814 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…t should not prohibit him from submitting further pro se appeals, petitions or motions regarding the conviction and sentence imposed in case number 80-21484 unless such pleadings are signed by a member of the Florida Bar. See Phillips v. Singletary, 728 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We find Walker’s Response insufficient. Accordingly, we deny Walker’s petition for mandamus, and direct the clerk of this…
-
Short v. State, 738 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…court case number 91-1732. Defendant has filed a response. We conclude that the defendant should be barred. See Rivera, 728 So. 2d 1165, 24 Fla. L. Weekly at S59; see also Ali v. State, 729 So. 2d 963, 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Phillips v. Singletary, 728 So. 2d 785, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Defendant’s conviction in circuit court case number 91-1732 went to judgment in 1992 and was affirmed on appeal in 1993. See Short v. State, 620 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Although the two-year time limit for postconvi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tortoise Island Cmtys., Inc. v. The Moorings Ass'n, Inc., 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1986)
- O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Francois v. State, 470 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1985)