TEDDY L. SUMMERALL, 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.
Teddy Summerall appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, arguing his convictions and sentences were unjust in light of relief granted to his brother on direct appeal. The court affirmed the dismissal, noting Summerall had repeatedly raised this identical claim over more than a decade without success.
The court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that Summerall's claim, which had been repeatedly raised and rejected over more than a decade, was without merit and should be denied.
[1] A habeas corpus petition may be dismissed when the petitioner fails to disclose prior unsuccessful proceedings raising the same claim.
[2] A petitioner is cautioned that failure to disclose prior postconviction proceedings and their results in subsequent filings may subject them to sanctions.
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“Each time, this court has carefully considered the claim and rejected it.”
Establishes that the court had repeatedly reviewed and rejected Summerall's identical argument in nine prior proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSummerall's brother, Tyron Summerall, received relief on direct appeal in 2001. Teddy Summerall's own judgments and sentences were affirmed by the app…
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 Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw
Teddy L. Summerall appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
In his petition, Mr. Summerall describes the relief that this court provided to his brother on direct appeal in 2001. See (Tyron) Summerall v. State, 777 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). He maintains that his judgments and sentences, which were affirmed by this court in 2000, see 767 So.2d 1218 Summerall v. State, 767 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (table decision), are a manifest injustice in light of the outcome achieved by his brother.
Mr. Summerall has repeatedly raised this claim. See Summerall v. State, 90 So.3d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (table decision); Summerall v. State, 84 So.3d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); Summerall v. Tucker, 75 So.3d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision) (habeas); Summerall v. State, 61 So.3d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision) (habeas); Summerall v. State, 15 So.3d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Summerall v. State, 992 So.2d 265 *449(Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (table decision) (habeas); Summerall v. State, 915 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (table decision); Summerall v. State, 856 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (table decision); Summerall v. State, 767 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (table decision). Each time, this court has carefully considered the claim and rejected it. Mr. Summerall’s effort to obtain federal habeas relief in 2007 was rejected as time-barred. See Summerall v. Crosby, 2007 WL 4247931 (M.D.Fla.2007).
In this instance, Mr. Summerall did not disclose in either his petition in the circuit court or in his brief in this court that he had filed the earlier unsuccessful proceedings. We affirm the order on appeal. In the event that Mr. Summerall files any additional challenges to these judgments and sentences, and we are not encouraging him to do so, he shall disclose his prior postconvietion proceedings and the results of those proceedings in any motion, petition, or brief. Mr. Summerall is cautioned that failure to make such a disclosure may subject him to appropriate sanctions.
Affirmed.
CRENSHAW and MORRIS, JJ„ Concur.