ALLEN v. STATE (2021)

Cirilo Keshun Allen petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus collaterally attacking his 2002 judgment and sentence for robbery with a firearm. We dismiss the petition 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 Allen's petition is frivolous. Earlier this year, this Court affirmed an order denying Allen's postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Allen v. State, 313 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (unpublished table decision). Allen 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.

Roberts, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.