CHARLES E. SMITH, PETITIONER,
v.
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.
The court held that the petition for writ of mandamus is procedurally barred. Relief is denied.
Charles E. Smith petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing his conviction was invalid due to the jury considering evidence excluded under the Frye te…
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 Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles E. Smith petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that his conviction is invalid because the jury was allowed to consider certain evidence which should have been excluded under the test set forth in Frye v. United States, 298 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). Petitioner candidly admits that this claim has previously been considered by this court and rejected. We again deny relief, finding that the petition is procedurally barred.
This court’s records reflect that this is Smith’s sixth collateral attack on his conviction.1 We accordingly warn Smith that if he continues to proceed in this manner, sanctions may be imposed. See Jones v. State, 858 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (habeas corpus denied); Smith v. State, 816 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (affir-mance of denial of motion for postconviction relief); Smith v. State, case number 1D02-3940 (appeal from denial of a rule 3.853 motion dismissed by unpublished order for failure to comply with orders of this court); Smith v. State, 865 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (affirmance of denial of a rule 3.853 motion); Smith v. State, 866 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (mandamus denied).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 858 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- City OF Hollywood & Gallagher Bassett Servs. v. Cappozzia, 866 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Smith v. State, 866 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)