FLAGG v. STATE (2021)

Akil Zachary Flagg petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus collaterally attacking his 2012 judgment and sentence. He raises an argument he has already cast in three different forms, and that this Court has rejected each time. See Flagg v. State, 115 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (direct appeal); Flagg v. State, 174 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel); Flagg v. State, 250 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (appeal of an order denying Flagg's postconviction motion). We now dismiss Flagg's habeas petition, his fourth challenge to his judgment and sentence, because “habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been, raised in rule 3.850 proceedings.” White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 1987); Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

We also conclude that Flagg's petition is frivolous. Flagg is warned that any of his future filings that the Court determines to be frivolous 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, Fla. Stat. (2020) (providing that “[a] prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal ․ or to have brought a frivolous or malicious collateral criminal proceeding ․ is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections”).

Dismissed.

Per Curiam.

Rowe, M.K. Thomas, and Nordby, JJ., concur.