DAVID HARRICHARAN, 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 a litigant who has repeatedly abused the judicial process may be prohibited from filing further pro se petitions or appeals.
[1] A litigant who abuses the judicial process may be prohibited from filing further pro se petitions or appeals.
[2] The representation of a litigant by counsel does not preclude a court from prohibiting further pro se filings by that litigant if the litigant has abused the judicial pro…
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 intelligenceDavid Harrieharan, convicted of kidnapping and murder, has filed numerous unsuccessful collateral challenges and appeals since his 2002 conviction. Hi…
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 Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
In 2002, David Harrieharan was convicted for the kidnapping and second-degree murder of Jose Vasquez and sentenced to two concurrent thirty-year terms of imprisonment. Harrieharan appealed his convictions, and this Court per curiam affirmed. Harricharan v. State, 871 So.2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Since then, Harrieharan has filed four pro se collateral challenges, including four motions for rehearing or rehearing en banc, all of which have been without merit. In his current habeas petition, Harrichar-an made the same arguments raised in prior appeals, prompting this Court to deny the petition and issue a Spencer1 show-cause order. Instead of a response from Harrieharan, this Court received a response from an attorney.2 Counsel for Harrieharan argued that a Spencer order cannot be entered against a litigant who is currently represented by counsel. Counsel then proceeded to rehash the same issues already decided in the many years since the 2002 conviction.
We conclude that Harrieharan is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings. The fact that an attorney has responded to our show-cause order does not impact our decision to prohibit Harrieharan from further pro se filings. Therefore, we now prohibit Harrieharan from filing with this Court any more pro se petitions or appeals concerning Seminole County case number 99-711-CFA. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Harrieharan that violate this prohibition. Any further pleadings will be rejected unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Floyd v. State, 62 So.3d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; Certified opinion FORWARDED to Harri-charan and the Department of Corrections.
ORFINGER, C.J., and BERGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Floyd v. State, 62 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)