ROBERT E.H. CARLISLE, 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.
A pro se petition filed by a party represented by counsel must be stricken.
Carlisle, represented by court-appointed counsel, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The petition was not signed by his attorney and was no…
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 Pro Se Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Robert E.H. Carlisle (“Carlisle”) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The petition requests this court to issue a writ compelling the circuit court to rule on Carlisle’s pro se motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of a portion of his motion for post-conviction relief. We strike the petition as being improperly filed.
Carlisle is represented in the pending circuit court case by court-appointed counsel, Clyde E. Shoemake. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.360(b) provides that attorneys in the lower tribunal retain their status in the appellate court unless others are duly appointed or substituted. The instant Petition for Writ of Mandamus is not signed by Attorney Shoemake and does not indicate that he has seen or reviewed it. The petition does indicate that Carlisle served a copy of the petition on Mr. Shoemake, yet he apparently did not serve a copy to any representative of the Respondent, State of Florida.
Carlisle has no right to partially represent himself and, at the same time to be partially represented by counsel. See Goode v. State, 366 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 2419, 60 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1979); Salser v. State, 582 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. dismissed, 613 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993); Sheppard v. State, 391 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, since Carlisle cannot properly file pleadings on his own behalf while represented by counsel, the instant pro se petition must be stricken from the record.
PETITION STRICKEN.
PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)…s in the [appellate] court unless others are duly appointed or substituted”). Consequently, the petitions in the subject cases cannot be entertained on the merits as they were filed pro se and have not been adopted by counsel. See Carlisle v. State, 773 So. 2d 647, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (striking pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel circuit court to rule on petitioner’s pro se motion for reconsideration of the denial of a portion of the petitioner’s motion for postconviction relief because…
-
Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)…held that pro se petitions for relief filed in the appellate courts were stricken where the defendant was represented by counsel in the trial court. Id. at 475 (citing Martin v. Bieluch, 786 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Carlisle v. State, 773 So. 2d 647, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). We thus announced a rule that absent an unequivocal request to discharge counsel, pro se petitions filed in this Court would be dismissed. Subsequent to Logan, we decided Johnson v. State, 974 So. 2d 363 (Fla.2008), in wh…
-
Padilla-Padial v. State, 152 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 281 (Fla.2009) (noting that Florida appellate courts have uniformly held that pro se petitions for relief filed in appellate courts were stricken where defendant was represented by counsel (citing Carlisle v. State, 773 So. 2d 647, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))). We recognize that there may be cases involving jail credit issues that, if not promptly resolved, would result in a defendant having served the legal portion of the sentence prior to the conclusion of the direct appeal.…
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
- Ill. Off. of Educ. v. Jennings, 441 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1979)
- Von Byrd v. Texas, 441 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1979)
- Verdell Hill, Jr. v. State, 391 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Salser v. State, 582 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Salser v. State, 613 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993)