Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doll v. State

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

May 10, 2017

Antonio Doll, Petitioner,
v.
The State of Florida, et al., Respondents.

         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

         A Case of Original Jurisdiction - Habeas Corpus Lower Tribunal No. 91-37881.

          Antonio Doll, in proper person.

          Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondents.

          Before LOGUE, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

          SCALES, J.

         Antonio Doll petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he is entitled to immediate release from prison because he was improperly designated a habitual violent felony offender and that his sentences are otherwise illegal. For the reasons stated below, we deny Doll's instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus and order Doll to show cause why this Court should not prohibit him from making further pro se filings to this Court in circuit court case number 91-37881.

         In November 1992, the jury found Doll guilty of burglary of a structure with a firearm and aggravated assault. At the sentencing hearing held in December 1992, the trial court designated Doll a habitual violent felony offender, sentencing him to thirty years in prison with a fifteen year minimum mandatory on the burglary conviction, and to ten years in prison with a three year minimum mandatory on the aggravated assault conviction. The court ordered the ten years to run consecutive to the thirty years, and the minimum mandatories to run concurrently.[1]

         This Court affirmed Doll's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See Doll v. State, 626 So.2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (table). Since that time, Doll has filed in this court at least thirteen postconviction appeals or petitions.[2]

         The instant petition argues that Doll's underlying sentences are illegal because the trial court's written order imposing the sentences does not comport with its oral pronouncements at the sentencing hearing. This court recently denied this very claim in appellate case number 3D15-2515. See Doll v. State, 207 So.3d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (table). Doll also claims that he was improperly designated a habitual violent felony offender. This court rejected this very claim in appellate case number 3D04-1854. See Doll v. State, 917 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We deny the instant petition.

         ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

         Doll 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 sentencing in circuit court case number 91-37881.

         If Doll does not demonstrate good cause, any such further and unauthorized filings by Doll will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.