MICHEAL L. HOGAN, 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.
The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed its order prohibiting Michael L. Hogan, a death-row inmate, from filing any further appeals, petitions, pleadings, or motions related to his 1987 first-degree murder conviction without attorney review and signature. The court took this action after Hogan had filed multiple unsuccessful rule 3.850 motions, rule 3.800(a) motions, and a habeas petition over a twenty-year period, with repeated assertions of the same legal claims.
The court affirmed the order prohibiting Hogan from filing any appeal, petition, pleading, or motion related to his convictions and sentences in the underlying case unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in Florida. The court also directed that a certified copy of the opinion be forwarded to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
[1] A court may prohibit a party from filing further pleadings related to a conviction and sentence unless reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney, especially after repeat…
[2] A party who fails to respond to an order to show cause why further pro se filings should not be prohibited may be subject to such prohibition.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We warn Hogan against filing additional improper pleadings seeking to raise this issue in the future.”
The court's prior explicit warning to Hogan about filing repetitive motions on identical issues, demonstrating the pattern of abuse underlying the prohibition order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHogan was convicted of first-degree murder on December 11, 1987, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a twenty-five year mandatory minimum. Over th…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On December 11, 1987, Hogan was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with a twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence. On direct appeal, this court affirmed per curiam his conviction and sentence. See Hogan v. State, 545 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (table).
Since Hogan’s direct appeal, he has filed four rule 3.850 motions in 1990, 1994, 1995, and 2006. The first was denied after an evidentiary hearing and affirmed per cu-riam. See Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (table). The trial court summarily denied the next three, which this court affirmed. See Hogan v. State, 650 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (table); Hogan v. State, 673 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (table); Hogan v. State, No. 07-65 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 13, 2007). On September 3, 2007, Hogan filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting the same claims as those made in his 2006 rule 3.850 motion. This court denied the petition. Hogan v. State, No. 07-3007 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 6, 2007).
Hogan has also filed two rule 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentence, both of which raised the same issue challenging the purported unconstitutionality of his life sentence as an improper indefinite sentence. The trial court denied both of these motions, and this court affirmed per cu-riam. See Hogan v. State, 826 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (table); Hogan v. State, 894 So. 2d 1070, 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“We warn Hogan against filing additional improper pleadings seeking to raise this issue in the future.”).
On March 5, 2008, this court issued an order to show cause why Hogan should not be prohibited from filing any appeal, petition, pleading, or motion pertaining to the convictions and sentences rendered in the above case unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. Hogan filed no response to the order to show cause.
Appellant Micheál L. Hogan is prohibited from filing any appeal, petition, pleading, or motion pertaining to the convictions and sentences rendered in Case No. 87-793-CF-M unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. Additionally, the clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 44.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA2005).
AFFIRMED; further pro se filings PROHIBITED; certified opinion FORWARDED to the Department of Corrections.
PALMER, C.J., GRIFFIN, and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Jones v. State, 894 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Hogan v. State, 894 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)