REGGIE FARRIOR v. RICKY DIXON (2023)

Farrior appeals the circuit court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Finding no error by the circuit court, we affirm. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1246 (Fla. 2004) (explaining that a trial court may dismiss, rather than transfer, a habeas petition when the petitioner seeks relief that “(1) would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850, (2) raise claims that could have been raised at trial or, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence, or (3) would be considered a second or successive motion under rule 3.850 that either fails to allege new or different grounds for relief that were known or should have been known at the time the first motion was filed.” ); Zuluaga v. Dep't of Corrs., 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

This is the fourth petition Farrior has filed in this Court collaterally attacking his judgment and sentence imposed by the Pinellas County Circuit Court following a 2010 jury trial. See Farrior v. State, 1D19–4158 (dismissing mandamus petition by order); Farrior v. Fla. Dep't of Corrs., 327 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (affirming order dismissing habeas petition); Farrior v. State, 343 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (dismissing mandamus petition as moot).

The Court finds that this appeal is frivolous and refers Farrior to the Department of Corrections for sanctions. See § 944.279, Florida Statutes (2022) (providing that “[a] prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal ․ is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections”); Ponton v. Willis, 172 So. 3d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (explaining that a Spencer order is not required before referring the inmate for disciplinary action based on frivolous filing).

Farrior is warned that any future filings that this Court determines to be frivolous or malicious may result in the imposition of further sanctions, including a prohibition against any future pro se filings in this Court.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.