CRYSTAL v. STATE (2020)

Affirmed. See generally Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004) (holding that habeas corpus is not a means to litigate issues that could have been or were raised in a direct appeal or postconviction motion); Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So. 2d 106, 109 (Fla. 1994) (holding that “[s]uccessive habeas corpus petitions seeking the same relief are not permitted”).

This is Appellant's fourth postconviction appeal or petition following his 2014 judgment and sentence. Appellant is warned that any future filings that this Court determines to be frivolous or malicious may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures. See § 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 pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections”).

Per Curiam.

Rowe, Winokur, and Nordby, JJ., concur.