DANNY O. DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 dismissed Danny O. Davis's third petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as impermissibly successive. The court also imposed sanctions, prohibiting Davis from filing further pro se petitions related to his appellate counsel's effectiveness on direct appeal.
The court held that the third petition was impermissibly successive. The court also concluded that sanctions were warranted and prohibited Davis from filing any further pro se petitions concerning the effectiveness of his appellate counsel on direct appeal.
[1] A successive petition raising claims that could have been raised in a prior petition denied on the merits constitutes an abuse of procedure.
[2] A petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may be dismissed as impermissibly successive if filed shortly after a prior petition raising similar claims.
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“To the extent this petition presents any new grounds, petitioner’s failure to raise them in his first petition the court denied on the merits amounts to an abuse of procedure.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for dismissing the petition as successive and an abuse of procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDanny O. Davis filed a third petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, less than two months after his second petition was dismissed as…
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 Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
For the third time in the past 18 months, Danny 0. Davis seeks to present a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. His first petition was denied on the merits by this court in April 2013. His second petition was dismissed on the authority of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d)(6)(C), as impermissibly successive in January 2014. The petition now before the court was filed less than two months later, again raising claims that Davis was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel in his direct appeal. To the extent this petition presents any new grounds, petitioner’s failure to raise them in his first petition the court denied on the merits amounts to an abuse of procedure. Accordingly, as we did with petitioner’s second petition, we dismiss the petition now before us as impermissibly successive.
In addition, because the court’s records reflected that since the disposition of his direct appeal, Davis has appeared as a pro se appellant or petitioner in at least 11 cases arising from the same lower tribunal proceeding, we directed him to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon him, including but not limited to a prohibition on any further pro se filings in this tribunal. Having considered petitioner’s response to this order, we conclude that sanctions are warranted, but that the appropriate restriction at this point is to prohibit Davis from filing any further pro se petitions or pleadings, however denominated, raising claims concerning the effectiveness of his appellate counsel on direct appeal in case number 1D10-2382. Accordingly, the clerk is directed to henceforth reject any such filings unless signed by a member in good standing of the Flori*654da Bar. Petitioner is cautioned that the filing of any further petitions or pleadings of any other sort determined by the court to be frivolous, malicious, or impermissibly successive, may result in the imposition of additional, broader sanctions.
PETITION DISMISSED and SANCTION IMPOSED.
LEWIS, C.J., PADOYANO and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 159 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…wo such petitions were dismissed as successive, and in the most recent petition, Davis was barred from bringing any further petitions relating to the effectiveness of appellate counsel in his direct appeal, case number 1D10-2382. See Davis v. State, 140 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). That order cautioned Davis that “the filing of any further petitions or pleadings of any other sort determined by this court to be frivolous, malicious, or impermissibly successive, may result in the imposition of additional, br…
-
Gernard Chestnut v. State, 178 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…petitioner from any further pro se filings at this time, we prohibit him from filing any further pro se petitions or pleadings challenging the effectiveness of his appellate counsel in case numbers 1D13-1207 and 1D13-1208. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 140 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).' The Clerk of this Court is “directed to henceforth reject any such filings unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar,” and “[petitioner is cautioned that the filing of any further petitions or pleadings of a…