RICKEY VALENTINO WARD, 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 petitioner is barred from making future pro se filings concerning the specific case due to abuse of the legal process through repeated attacks on his conviction and sentence.
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge judgments and sentences entered after a plea to criminal charges. This was one of many pro …
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 Pro Se Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus to challenge judgments and sentences entered in 2002 after he entered a plea to criminal charges in Duval County Circuit Court case number 02-8956-CF-A. The petition is dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) (reiterating that habeas corpus cannot be used to litigate issues that could have been or were raised on direct appeal or in postconviction motions).
Due to petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence, this court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (requiring that courts “first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence.”). Petitioner’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.
As such, because petitioner’s continued and repeated attacks on his conviction and sentences have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this court concerning Duval County Circuit Court case number 02-8956-CF-A. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Petitioner is warned that any filings which violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410.
PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ardis v. Ardis, 130 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…s directed to dismiss the case. PETITION DENIED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED. PADOVANO, ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. . See e.g., Baldwin v. State, 104 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Williams v. State, 102 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Ward v. State, 75 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Obojes v. State, 946 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). . Van Zant v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 94 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). . Pflaum v. Pflaum, 974 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). . Johnson v. Wilbur, 981 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st D…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)