Filed: Aug. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DOUGLAS SINCLAIR, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D16-2461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. _/ Opinion filed August 16, 2016. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Original Jurisdiction. Douglas Sinclair, pro se, Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Douglas Sinclair has filed a petition for writ of habe
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DOUGLAS SINCLAIR, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D16-2461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. _/ Opinion filed August 16, 2016. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Original Jurisdiction. Douglas Sinclair, pro se, Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Douglas Sinclair has filed a petition for writ of habea..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
DOUGLAS SINCLAIR, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D16-2461
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
___________________________/
Opinion filed August 16, 2016.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.
Douglas Sinclair, pro se, Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Douglas Sinclair has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming he is
being held on a void judgment because no information was pending at the time of trial.
We dismiss the petition. See Baker v. State,
878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004) (habeas
corpus cannot be used to litigate issues that could have been or were raised on direct
appeal or in postconviction motions).
Sinclair has raised this same argument at least five times in this court, and each
time has failed to obtain relief. See Sinclair v. State,
134 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA
2014); Sinclair v. State,
132 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Sinclair v. State,
147 So.
3d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Sinclair v. State,
118 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013);
Sinclair v. State,
114 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). The last time he raised this
argument, we warned him that future frivolous filings could result in a prohibition on
any further pro se filings. See Sinclair v. State,
132 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
Accordingly, after receiving the present petition, we ordered petitioner to show cause
why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings challenging his judgment
and sentence. See State v. Spencer,
751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Petitioner’s
response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the
imposition of sanctions.
Therefore, because petitioner’s repeated attacks on his judgment and sentence
have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se
filings in the court concerning Duval County Circuit Court case number 16-2000-CF-
009964-A. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings
concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida
Bar.
DISMISSED.
2
LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
3