ROBERT E. CLARIDY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel filed more than four years after judgment and sentence become final on direct review is procedurally barred and must be dismissed.
[1] A petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct review must be filed within four years after the judgment and sentence become final on direct re…
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 intelligence“[i]n no case shall a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct review be filed more than 4 years after the judgment and sentence become final on direct review.”
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d)(5) establishing the four-year filing deadline
Robert E. Claridy was convicted in 2015 of unlawful sexual activity with a minor; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal without o…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.141(D) cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ROBERT E. CLARIDY,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D21-1091
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 17, 2021
Petition Alleging Ineffectiveness of Appellate Counsel, A Case of Original Jurisdiction.
Robert Claridy, Raiford, pro se.
No Appearance for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Robert E. Claridy has filed a successive petition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d) alleging that he received ineffective assistance from his appellate counsel on direct appeal. We dismiss the petition.
2
Claridy was convicted after trial in 2015 of one count of unlawful sexual activity with a minor. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal without opinion. Claridy v. State, 199 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Mandate issued on September 16, 2016, resulting in Claridy’s judgment and sentence becoming final that day.
Claridy’s present petition was filed almost five years after his judgment and sentence became final. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d), which governs petitions alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n no case shall a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct review be filed more than 4 years after the judgment and sentence become final on direct review.” See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5). Accordingly, as Claridy’s instant petition is clearly untimely under this rule, it is dismissed as procedurally barred. See Mendoza v. State, 224 So. 3d 836, 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Because Mendoza’s petition was filed . . . more than four years after his judgment and sentence became final on direct review, we dismiss Mendoza’s petition as procedurally barred under rule 9.141(d)(5).”).
As this is now Claridy’s fifth unsuccessful postconviction proceeding in this court regarding his judgment and sentence in Putnam County Circuit Court Case No. 2013-CF-739, we caution him that any further repetitive,
3 malicious, or frivolous filings directed to this judgment and sentence may result in the imposition of sanctions against him including, but not limited to, prohibiting him from any further pro se filings in this court regarding the judgment and sentence and a referral to prison officials for consideration of disciplinary proceedings, which may include the forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2021); State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
PETITION DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.
LAMBERT, C.J., HARRIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Mendoza v. State, 224 So. 3d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)