ROBERT E. PETTIS, 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.
Robert Pettis appeals the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging a scrivener's error in the date of his offenses. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the claim frivolous and procedurally barred, and recommended disciplinary proceedings against Pettis for pursuing a clearly meritless claim.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Pettis's motion, holding that the claim is both procedurally barred as previously raised and rejected, and substantively waived by Pettis's plea of no contest to the charges. By pleading no contest, Pettis effectively admitted to the date set forth in the information.
[1] A defendant waives any alleged defect in an information by pleading no contest to the charges.
[2] A claim previously litigated and decided against a defendant is procedurally barred from further review.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Pettis' continued pursuit of this issue is clearly frivolous.”
The court's characterization of Pettis's repeated claim as meritless and subject to disciplinary recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePettis pleaded no contest in December 1991 to two counts of attempted sexual battery and two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, receiving 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 Probationary Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWSON, J.
Robert E. Pettis, (“Pettis”), appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm and write only to recommend that the Department of Corrections institute disciplinary proceedings against Pettis pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, for his pursuit of this clearly frivolous claim on appeal.
Nearly fifteen years ago, on December 6, 1991, Pettis pled no contest to two counts of attempted sexual battery and to two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child. For these offenses, he received an aggregate probationary split sentence of twelve years in prison followed by fifteen years of probation. His direct appeal to this court resulted in a per curiam affir-mance. Pettis v. State, 605 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (table).
Subsequently, Pettis was released to probation, but violated his probation, and was resentenced to fifteen years in prison. His appeal of the resentencing resulted in a per curiam affirmance. Pettis v. State, 796 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (table).
Pettis recently filed in the trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that there was a scrivener’s error in the date charged in the information. The trial court’s denial of his petition was affirmed by this court per curiam in Pettis v. State, 918 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Pettis’ previous motion to clarify sentence also alleged the same scrivener’s error, but he did not appeal the trial court’s denial of that motion.
In the instant motion, Pettis for the third time alleges that there is a scrivener’s error in the date charged in the information. Specifically, he complains that while the information states that his offenses took place on November 1,1989, the sworn statement and the police report indicates that his offenses occurred sometime between June 1989 and June 1990. According to him, it is “impossible to determine from the police report” if his offenses occurred before or after October 1, 1989. Thus, in his view, it is “quite clear” that the November 1, 1989 offense date stated in the information is “in error.”
Pettis’ continued pursuit of this issue is clearly frivolous. For one thing, his claim is proeedurally barred, since, as indicated, Pettis previously raised this claim in the trial court on two prior occasions and this court upheld the trial court’s ruling against him on the same claim on one of the occasions. See generally State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003). For another, as the trial court points out in its order, Pettis waived any alleged defect in the information by pleading no contest to the charges. See Yates v. State, 509 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Since he pled no contest to the charges, he effectively admitted to the date set forth in the information.
Therefore, we affirm and direct the Clerk to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED; certified opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beauford White v. State, 937 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…(2005) and section 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2005). Defendant avers that he is one year removed from release and was unaware of the frivolous nature of his filings. While we believe that a sanction in this case would be permissible, see Pettis v. State, 931 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), we choose, in our discretion, not to employ this measure here where defendant avers that he will cease his vexatious practice. For the foregoing reasons, we order that henceforth any pleadings or papers filed in this court rela…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Yates v. State, 509 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Pettis v. State, 918 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Hibbard v. McGRAW, 918 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)