SHERNERD RICHARDSON, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH S. TUCKER, ETC., 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 Florida Supreme Court sanctioned an inmate, Shernerd Richardson, for filing eleven frivolous extraordinary writ petitions related to his affirmed sex offense conviction. The Court prohibited Richardson from filing further pro se pleadings regarding his criminal case unless represented by a member of The Florida Bar, and directed notification to the Department of Corrections pursuant to statute.
The Court held that Richardson's petition was unauthorized under Baker v. State and frivolous under Florida Statute § 944.279. The Court prohibited Richardson from filing any future pro se pleadings related to his criminal case unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing, and directed the Clerk to forward a certified copy of the opinion to the Department of Corrections.
[1] A writ of habeas corpus may not be used for collateral postconviction challenges, except in limited circumstances, as such challenges must be raised under Florida Rule of…
[2] Allegations of trial court error that are not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(c) cannot be raised in a habeas corpus petition.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“it is patently evident from the record before this Court that Richardson is not entitled to bring further collateral attacks on his criminal case.”
Establishes that the Court determined Richardson had exhausted legitimate avenues for relief and was engaged in abusive litigation practices.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichardson was convicted and sentenced for a sex offense in Levy County, Florida in 2005. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal t…
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 Collateral Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Shernerd Richardson, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court challenging his conviction and sentence.1 We dismissed the petition in this case by way of an unpublished order, determining that the petition was unauthorized pursuant to Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).2 *266In disposing of the petition in this case, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Richardson.3 See generally Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a).
Richardson was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for committing a sex offense in Levy County, Florida (circuit court case number 2005-CF-00252). Richardson appealed his conviction and sentence to the First District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Richardson v. State, 986 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (table decision). Since his criminal case became final, Richardson has unsuccessfully brought numerous collateral proceedings in the district court below seeking relief related to his criminal case.4 However, it is patently evident from the record before this Court that Richardson is not entitled to bring further collateral attacks on his criminal case.
Since December 2010, Richardson has filed multiple extraordinary writ petitions with this Court seeking relief related to his criminal case. We note that in none of the petitions Richardson filed in this Court has any relief been granted to him.5 Because the petition in this case was Richardson’s eleventh extraordinary writ petition filed *267with this Court, we issued an order directing him to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se filings in this Court related to circuit court case number 2005-CF-00252.6 After considering Richardson’s response, we conclude that it fails to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. We further conclude that Richardson’s unauthorized petition is a frivolous proceeding brought to this Court by a prisoner. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2011). Richardson has compiled a history of pro se filings that, like the instant petition, were either devoid of merit or inappropriate for review in this Court.
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Shernerd Richardson that are related to circuit court case number 2005-CF-00252, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of the The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Richardson’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.7 Furthermore, since we have found Richardson’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2011), to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where Richardson is incarcerated.8
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (25 total)
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Adkins, 71 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 2011)
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
- Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 2011)
- James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011)
- Tate v. McNEIL, 983 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2008)
- Smallwood v. State, 68 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 2011)
- Mager v. Garfinkel, 75 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 2011)