From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlisle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 15, 2000
773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

striking pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel circuit court to rule on petitioner's pro se motion for reconsideration of the denial of a portion of the petitioner's motion for postconviction relief because petitioner had been represented in the postconviction relief proceedings by court-appointed counsel, and, under rule 9.360(b), counsel retained his status as counsel in the appellate court unless others were duly appointed or substituted

Summary of this case from Logan v. State

Opinion

No. 5D00-3070.

Opinion filed December 15, 2000.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Shawn L. Briese, Respondent Judge.

Petition stricken.

Robert E.H. Carlisle, Clermont, pro se.

No appearance for Appellee.


Robert E.H. Carlisle ("Carlisle") has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The petition requests this court to issue a writ compelling the circuit court to rule on Carlisle's pro se motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of a portion of his motion for post-conviction relief. We strike the petition as being improperly filed.

Carlisle is represented in the pending circuit court case by court-appointed counsel, Clyde E. Shoemake. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.360(b) provides that attorneys in the lower tribunal retain their status in the appellate court unless others are duly appointed or substituted. The instant Petition for Writ of Mandamus is not signed by Attorney Shoemake and does not indicate that he has seen or reviewed it. The petition does indicate that Carlisle served a copy of the petition on Mr. Shoemake, yet he apparently did not serve a copy to any representative of the Respondent, State of Florida.

Carlisle has no right to partially represent himself and, at the same time to be partially represented by counsel. See Goode v. State, 365 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 967 (1979); Salser v. State, 582 So.2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. dismissed, 613 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1993); Sheppard v. State, 391 So.2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, since Carlisle cannot properly file pleadings on his own behalf while represented by counsel, the instant pro se petition must be stricken from the record.

Peterson and Pleus, J.J., Concur.


Summaries of

Carlisle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 15, 2000
773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

striking pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel circuit court to rule on petitioner's pro se motion for reconsideration of the denial of a portion of the petitioner's motion for postconviction relief because petitioner had been represented in the postconviction relief proceedings by court-appointed counsel, and, under rule 9.360(b), counsel retained his status as counsel in the appellate court unless others were duly appointed or substituted

Summary of this case from Logan v. State

explaining that counsel in lower court retains status as counsel for party in appellate court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.360(b)

Summary of this case from Manning v. Ford

explaining that counsel in lower court retains status as counsel for party in appellate court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.360(b)

Summary of this case from Manning v. State

explaining that counsel in lower court retains status as counsel for party in appellate court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.360(b)

Summary of this case from Farrell v. State
Case details for

Carlisle v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E.H. CARLISLE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Dec 15, 2000

Citations

773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Stewart v. State

Additionally, since appellate counsel represented Stewart when he filed his pro se motion, and the motion did…

Sheppard v. State

We noted that in similar contexts the appellate courts had uniformly held that pro se petitions for relief…