MOORE v. STATE (2020)

Anthony J. Moore petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his 2016 judgment and sentence should be vacated because the trial court never ruled on his pro se motion to disqualify the trial judge. We dismiss the petition because Moore should have raised this claim on direct appeal or by postconviction motion. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004) (finding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to litigate issues that the defendant raised or could have raised on direct appeal or in postconviction proceedings). In any event, Moore's claim lacks merit. When Moore filed his motion to disqualify the trial judge, he was represented by counsel. Thus, the motion was a nullity. See Thompson v. State, 615 So. 2d 737, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Moore is also warned that any future filings that this Court determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures under section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2019) (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 under the rules of the Department of Corrections).

Per Curiam.

Lewis, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.