HAROLD W. COOPER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In his ninth appearance in two 1991 Brevard County cases, Harold W. Cooper wants this court to review the denial of his latest rule 3.800(a) motion. Once again, he is challenging his habitual felony offender status. He relies upon Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), but Florida law holds that “a mere allegation of a defective ha-bitualization process ... does not constitute a claim of an ‘illegal’ sentence.” Edwards v. State, 760 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We affirm.
We conclude this appeal is frivolous and an abuse of process. See, e.g., Johans v. State, 901 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we prohibit Harold W. Cooper from filing any further pro se pleadings or papers concerning Brevard County Circuit Court Case Numbers 05-1991-CFA-12573 and/or 05-1991-CFA-15062 with this court. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning these cases.
AFFIRMED. Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Carry, Inc. v. Univ. OF N. Fla., 133 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…includes wording in one section of a statute and not in another, it is presumed to have been intentionally excluded. See Bd. of Trs. of Fla. State Univ. v. Esposito, 991 So. 2d 924, 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting L.K. v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 917 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). The judiciary cannot extend the terms of an unambiguous statute beyond its express terms or reasonable and obvious implications under Florida’s strict separation of powers delineated in article II, section three, of the Fl…
-
In re Commitment OF Stephen Allen. Stephen Allen v. State, 927 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ce.” (Emphasis added.) The omission of the emphasized language from section 394.918(3) suggests that the legislature did not intend that the State have the burden of proof at the limited probable cause hearing. See L.K. v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 917 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“It is a general canon of statutory construction that, when the legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but not in another section of the same statute, the omitted language is presumed to have b…
-
J.D. v. State, 954 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…e detention, as appropriate. The power to place juveniles charged with or found to have committed a delinquent act into detention is entirely statutory in nature. Strict compliance with the statute is required. See L.K. v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 917 So. 2d 919, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); W.C. v. Smith, 898 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Here, the consecutive detention periods imposed upon J.D. were in violation of the statutory limitations, and the order entered by the trial court making that improp…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005)
- Alfonzo Edwards v. State, 760 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Johans v. State, 901 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)