ANDRE PINDER, PETITIONER,
v.
THE 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.
Andre Pinder petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his 1991 upward departure sentence. The court denied the petition as successive, finding the issue had been previously reviewed and disposed of, and issued an order to show cause regarding Pinder's pattern of repeated pro se filings.
The court denied Pinder's habeas corpus petition as successive because the issue had already been reviewed and disposed of in prior proceedings. The court issued an order to show cause directing Pinder to demonstrate good cause within forty-five days why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other pleadings related to his conviction, warning that unauthorized filings may result in sanctions including potential disciplinary action and loss of gain time.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot substitute for an appropriate motion for post-conviction relief.
[2] A trial court may treat a motion to request permission to file a habeas corpus petition as a rule 3.850 motion if it is used to circumvent post-conviction relief limitati…
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“Pinder's petition for habeas corpus attempts to circumvent prior rulings on his other petitions seeking reversal of the trial court's order for upward departure. This issue has been reviewed and disposed of by this Court. Therefore, this Court finds Pinder's petition for habeas corpus successive and denies the petition.”
Establishes the court's basis for denying the petition as successive and barred by prior adjudication of the same issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, Pinder was convicted by jury of armed burglary, two counts of aggravated battery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of simple a…
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 Successive Petitions cases and more on FLexlaw
Andre Pinder petitions this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to rule 9.100 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We deny Pinder’s petition and issue an order to show cause as described below.
In 1991, a jury convicted Pinder of armed burglary, two counts of aggravated battery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of simple assault. The trial court entered an “Order Justifying Departure Sentence” that exceeded the sentencing guidelines range for his crimes. Pin-der appealed this upward departure and this Court affirmed his sentence. Pinder v. State, 591 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (Mem). Pinder petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for review. His petition was denied in Pinder v. State, 599 So.2d 1279 (Fla.1992) (Table).
Pinder’s petition for habeas corpus attempts to circumvent prior rulings on his other petitions seeking reversal of the trial court’s order for upward departure. This issue has been reviewed and disposed of by this Court. Therefore, this Court finds Pinder’s petition for habeas corpus successive and denies the petition. Further, this Court issues an order to show cause as described below.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Since 1991, Pinder has filed numerous petitions and appeals to this Court regarding the legality of his sentence with respect to the upward departure in the trial court’s order.1 Pinder is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days of this opinion, as to why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other pleadings related to his criminal conviction in circuit court case number 89-28127.
If Pinder does not demonstrate good cause, we will direct the Clerk of this Court not to accept any such filings unless they have been reviewed by, and bear the signature of, a licensed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar.
Additionally, and absent a showing of good cause, any further and unauthorized filings by Pinder will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).
Denied. Order to show cause issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Kapua, 972 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Pinder v. State, 591 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)