LAWRENCE G. CORNER, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Court denies writ of prohibition and prohibits pro se filings by defendant represented by counsel, warning of sanctions for continued frivolous appeals.
A defendant represented by counsel is prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, pleadings, petitions, or motions without written attorney consent.
[1] A defendant represented by counsel is prohibited from filing pro se appeals, pleadings, petitions, or motions without written attorney consent, and continued violations m…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“any citizen, including a citizen attacking his or her conviction, abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims”
Court cited State v. Spencer for the principle that pro se litigants cannot abuse court access through frivolous filings
Lawrence Corner was arrested and charged with sexual offenses and kidnapping. He was appointed a public defender but filed three continuance motions a…
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 Judicial Resources cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Lawrence G. Corner, was arrested on November 27, 1999, and charged by Information with lewd and lascivious battery on a child less than sixteen years of age, sexual battery, lewd and lascivious molestation of a child less than twelve to sixteen years of age, and kidnapping. A public defender was appointed to represent him. Corner filed a hand-written, in proper person, writ of prohibition alleging that there has been no showing that he was not ready for trial. Based on this representation, we ordered a response from the State. Corner in fact has moved for three continuances. He has filed a barrage of pro se motions, including a Motion for Immediate Release on Own Recognizance, a Demand for Speedy Trial, a Motion for Rehearing, and a Motion to Discharge the Public Defender. This is his third pro se appeal to this Court.
We deny the writ of prohibition. As the Florida Supreme Court stated in State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999), “any citizen, including a citizen attacking his or her conviction, abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims.” The same holds true for pretrial interlocutory appeals. As long as a public defender represents the petitioner, the petitioner is prohibited from filing any more appeals, pleadings, petitions, or motions without his or her attorney’s written consent. If Corner persists, this Court will issue a show cause order as to why he should not be denied further access to this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodrick Sams v. State, 849 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ly treat pro se motions by defendants who have representation as a “nullity, having no legal force or effect.” Thompson v. State, 615 So. 2d 737, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also, Lewis v. State, 766 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Corner v. State, 779 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The Florida Supreme Court has recently stated that where such pro se petitions have not been adopted by counsel they cannot be entertained on the merits. Logan, 846 So. 2d at 474. The court further stated that “Consistent with lo…
-
Nadrian Butts v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…as unauthorized. Id. Finally, the Court warns Appellant that future attempts at hybrid representation may result in the imposition of sanctions, to include a prohibition on future pro se filings. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410; see also Corner v. State, 779 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“As long as a public defender represents the petitioner, the petitioner is prohibited from filing any more appeals, pleadings, petitions, or motions without his or her attorney's written consent. 3 See Indiana v. Edwards, 5…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)