Green v. Tucker
101 So. 3d 358
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Green, an inmate, filed a pro se habeas petition alleging illegal sentences which this Court previously denied as procedurally barred.
- The Court retained jurisdiction to consider possible sanctions against Green under Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a).
- In 2005 Green was convicted and sentenced in Alachua County for two sex offenses; he received ten years of sex offender probation thereafter.
- In 2008 the sentencing court sua sponte removed the sex offender probation nunc pro tunc to November 10, 2005, because keeping it would exceed the statutory maximum.
- Green then moved to correct sentencing error and to correct illegal sentences; both motions were denied on the merits by the sentencing court.
- Since 2009 Green filed six extraordinary writ petitions in this Court with no relief granted; the petitions were deemed meritless or inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nunc pro tunc removal rendered the sentences illegal | Green contends the court erred in correcting sentencing nunc pro tunc to 2005. | The court corrected the sentence to avoid exceeding statutory maximums, which Green cannot challenge successfully. | No relief; sentences not illegal as challenged. |
| Whether Green’s petition was procedurally barred or frivolous | Green asserts entitlements to habeas relief or review. | Writs have been repeatedly meritless or inappropriate for consideration. | Petition deemed frivolous and procedurally barred. |
| Whether sanctions barring future pro se filings are appropriate | Green seeks to pursue relief related to circuit court case 01-2004-CF-2871-A. | Green has abused judicial resources; sanctions are warranted including barring future pro se filings unless signed by a Florida Bar member. | Sanctions imposed; Clerk barred future related filings absent counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Denson v. State, 775 So.2d 288 (Fla. 2000) (extraordinary writs cannot litigate issues available on direct appeal or postconviction)
- Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1992) (limits on use of extraordinary writs for collateral attacks)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (notice and opportunity to respond before barring further attacks)
- Green v. Tucker, 88 So.3d 149 (Fla. 2012) (context for sanctions and frivolous filings; authority cited)
- Gaffney v. Tucker, 94 So.3d 556 (Fla. 2012) (sanctions for abusive pro se filing practices)
- James v. Tucker, 75 So.3d 231 (Fla. 2011) (sanctions for frivolous filings in this Court)
- Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221 (Fla. 2009) (limits on frivolous postconviction filings)
- Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2008) (abusive litigation patterns sanctionable)