JULIUS J. HALYARD, JR., DOC # 491652, APPELLAHT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JULIUS J. HALYARD, DOC # 491652, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of postconviction motions challenging a conviction for soliciting lewd or lascivious conduct, cautioning the pro se appellant against future frivolous filings.
The court affirmed the postconviction orders denying relief from a conviction for soliciting lewd or lascivious conduct.
[1] A pro se litigant who has filed multiple unsuccessful proceedings in an appellate court may be subject to an order to show cause regarding future filings related to the s…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulius J. Halyard was convicted in 2005 of soliciting lewd or lascivious conduct. His direct appeal was affirmed seven years prior in 2008.…
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 Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Julius J. Halyard appeals two orders denying postconviction motions. We have consolidated these appeals for the purpose of issuing this opinion because the postcon-viction motions in both appeals challenge Mr. Halyard’s conviction for soliciting lewd or lascivious conduct, which resulted from his conduct in 2005. This court affirmed his direct appeal seven years ago in Halyard v. State, 982 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Hillsborough County Circuit Criminal Case Number 06-CF-2787).
We affirm without comment the postcon-viction orders that are the subject of these appeals. Mr. Halyard has had at least six previously decided, unsuccessful proceedings in this court arising from this criminal case or from civil actions that he has initiated against various parties connected to this criminal case. None of these proceedings has had merit. Although in these two appeals we did not issue orders to show why this court should not direct the clerk to reject such pleadings, see State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999), Mr. Halyard is cautioned that in any future pro se.proceeding commenced in this court related to this criminal conviction, we will first review the matter to determine whether an order to show cause should be issued. See Casey v. State, 158 So.3d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Casey v. State, 158 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)