Carlisle v. State
| Decision Date | 15 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D00-3070.,5D00-3070. |
| Citation | 773 So.2d 647 |
| Parties | Robert E.H. CARLISLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
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, 99 S.Ct. 2419, 60 L.Ed.2d 1074 (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.
PETITION STRICKEN.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheppard v. State
...by counsel in the trial court. Id. at 475 (citing Martin v. Bieluch, 786 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Carlisle v. State, 773 So.2d 647, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). We thus announced a rule that absent an unequivocal request to discharge counsel, pro se petitions filed in this Court w......
-
Logan v. State
...cases cannot be entertained on the merits as they were filed pro se and have not been adopted by counsel. See Carlisle v. State, 773 So.2d 647, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (striking pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel circuit court to rule on petitioner's pro se motion for re......
- Durr v. State, 5D00-272.
-
Padilla-Padial v. State
...se petitions for relief filed in appellate courts were stricken where defendant was represented by counsel (citing Carlisle v. State, 773 So.2d 647, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) )). We recognize that there may be cases involving jail credit issues that, if not promptly resolved, would result in ......