MARK OLIVEIRA, 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.
Mark Oliveira, a pro se litigant, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions and a trial court order barring his future pro se filings. The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the petition and imposed sanctions, prohibiting Oliveira from filing any future pro se papers unless signed by a Florida Bar member certifying good faith basis for each claim.
The court imposed sanctions against Oliveira, directing the Clerk of Court to no longer accept any paper filed by him unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar who certifies a good faith basis for each claim presented.
[1] Habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for postconviction relief proceedings.
[2] A court may impose sanctions, including barring future pro se filings, for repeated abuse of the postconviction process.
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“habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for an appropriate motion seeking postconviction relief pursuant to [rule 3.850]”
Establishes the legal principle that the habeas petition Oliveira filed was improper and frivolous
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOliveira had been convicted in two lower court cases and previously appealed his convictions and sentences multiple times. Between 1998 and 2011, he f…
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 Discretionary Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Mark Oliveira filed a pro se habeas petition in this court, challenging his convictions and sentences in two lower court cases1 as well as an order that barred him from filing future pro se filings in the trial court. Oliveira previously appealed his convictions and sentences. See Oliveira v. State, 751 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Oliveira v. State, 718 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).2 He subsequently filed over thirty appeals and petitions in this court in connection with those lower court cases.3
In 2011, this court directed Oliveira to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.4 In 2012, this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of another post-conviction relief motion filed by Oliveira. Oliveira v. State, 96 So.3d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).5 This court also affirmed the trial court’s sanction order. Id. With these two 2012 affirmances, orders were issued directing Oliveira once again to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed by our court. Though no sanction order was issued in either 2011 or 2012, Oliveira was well aware that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions.
Undeterred, and barred from filing in the trial court, Oliveira filed this frivolous petition for "writ of habeas corpus. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1241 (Fla.2004) (“[Hjabeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for an appropriate motion seeking postconviction relief pursuant to [rule 3.850].”) (quoting Harris v. State, 789 So.2d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)). Because of Oliveira’s ongoing abuse of the postconviction process, we directed Oli-veira to explain why he should not be barred with respect to future pro se filings pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(m). We have reviewed Oliveira’s response and conclude that sanctions are appropriate. Lake v. State, 115 So.3d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)); see also McCutcheon v. State, 44 So.3d 156, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Accordingly, the Clerk of this court is directed to no longer accept any paper filed by Mark Oliveira unless that paper has been signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar and -that *966member certifies that a good faith basis exists for each claim presented. Further, we direct the Clerk to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012).
Petition denied. Sanctions imposed.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2007)
- Barnard v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Cedrick E. Spann v. State, 772 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Ulysses Drake, Jr. v. State, 772 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Oliveira v. State, 751 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Perry v. State, 718 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)