Corner v. State

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 27, 2016.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D15-2543
Lower Tribunal No. 99-40037
________________
Lawrence Corner,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian,
Judge.
Lawrence Corner, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SHEPHERD, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Lawrence Corner appeals a denial by the trial court of his motion to request
permission to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2001, Corner was
convicted of kidnapping and sexual battery. He was sentenced to life in prison for
the kidnapping charge and fifteen years for the sexual battery charge. This Court
affirmed the convictions and sentencing in Corner v. State, 868 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2004). Including both the direct appeal and the current appeal, Corner has
filed in this Court fourteen post-conviction petitions or appeals.1 For the reasons
set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s ruling and issue an order to show cause.
Underlying Corner’s current appeal is Corner’s allegation that he was not
given a proper Miranda warning at the time of his arrest. This issue was raised in a
motion to suppress and heard in an evidentiary hearing in November of 2000. The
trial court denied Corner’s motion to suppress and Corner did not raise this issue
on direct appeal. Corner, however, raised this issue fruitlessly in an earlier post-
conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. Corner v. State, 163 So. 3d 1205
(Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (Table).
As the trial court points out in its order on appeal, Corner is attempting to
use the habeas corpus petition as a disguised rule 3.850 motion. See Baker v. State,
1 Corner v. State, 163 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (Table); Corner v. State,
151 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (Table); Corner v. State, No. 3D14-921 (Fla.
3d DCA Aug. 5, 2015); Corner v. State, No. 12-2537 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 4, 2013);
Corner v. State, 90 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (Table); Corner v. State, 59 So.
3d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Table); Corner v. State, 35 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA
2010) (Table); Corner v. State, 27 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (Table); Corner
v. State, 17 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (Table); Corner v. State, 928 So. 2d
1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (Table); Corner v. State, 917 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA
2005); Corner v. State, 913 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (Mem).
2
878 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 2004) (holding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus
cannot substitute for an appropriate motion for post-conviction relief under rule
3.850). By treating Corner’s motion to request permission to file a habeas corpus
petition as a rule 3.850 motion, the trial court determined that the motion is
“legally insufficient, time-barred, successive, and conclusively refuted by the
record.”2 We agree.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Corner is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days from the date
of this opinion, why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se
appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his criminal convictions
and sentencing in circuit court case number F99-40037.
If Corner does not demonstrate good cause, any such further and
unauthorized filings by Corner will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including
the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of
Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including forfeiture of gain
time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
Affirmed. Order to show cause issued.
2 We note that this case represents the third effort in as many years that Corner has
tried to evade the limitations of a rule 3.850 motion through an inapt habeas corpus
petition. Corner, 163 So. 3d 1205; Corner, 151 So. 3d 1255.
3