DALE C. DANIELS, JR., 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.
Petition for prohibition relief denied because the same claim was previously rejected on the merits, barring it under the law of the case doctrine.
A petition for prohibition is barred under the law of the case doctrine when the same claim was previously considered and rejected on the merits.
[1] A petition raising a claim previously considered and rejected on the merits is barred under the law of the case doctrine and need not be reconsidered.
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 intelligenceDaniels petitioned for prohibition relief, claiming the trial court lost jurisdiction when the state filed a nolle prosequi and that reinstatement was…
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 Sanctions For Abusive Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Dale C. Daniels, Jr., petitions the court for prohibition relief, asserting that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding against him when the state filed a nolle prosequi, and that the state and trial court were without authority to reinstate the criminal case. Daniels presented this same claim in an earlier petition for writ of prohibition filed with this court, which we denied on the merits after it was shown that the nolle prosequi upon which Daniels is relying was actually entered in another of his cases, not the case in which he presently seeks relief. Because this claim was earlier considered by the court and rejected on the merits, the present petition is procedurally barred under the doctrine of law of the case, and it is DENIED on that basis. See generally Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101 (Fla.2001); see also Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253 (Fla.2004).
We caution petitioner that the filing of any future pleadings raising claims that are procedurally barred, frivolous, or otherwise abusive may result in the imposition of sanctions against him, including but not limited to a prohibition on further pro se filings in this court.
BENTON, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)
- Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004)