Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

919 So. 2d 540

Docket No. 3D05-2452.

Marsh v. State

Aaron K. MARSH, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 21, 2005.

Rehearing Denied January 20, 2006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2005-12-21

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 2006

1 state decisions

Relies on 846 So. 2d 472 - Logan v. State · 831 So. 2d 93 - Westerheide v. State · Mourra v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-12-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Aaron K. Marsh, in proper person.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

¶3Before CORTIÑAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

¶4ROTHENBERG, Judge.

¶5The petitioner, Aaron Marsh, who is currently detained by the State of Florida pursuant to Florida's Sexual Violent Predator Act, section 394.901, Florida Statutes, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with that court, and for injunctive relief based upon double jeopardy grounds. As these pleadings were filed pro se; the petitioner is represented by counsel;[1] and there is no indication that his appointed counsel has adopted the instant pleadings, we hereby strike the petition. See Mourra v. State,884 So.2d 316, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(holding that pleadings filed by a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel are generally treated as a nullity), *541review denied,891 So.2d 552 (Fla.2004); Logan v. State,846 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2003)(same).

¶6We additionally note that the petitioner's mandamus claim is now moot as the trial court has ruled on his petition for writ of habeas corpus, and that his double jeopardy claim is meritless. See Westerheide v. State,831 So.2d 93 (Fla.2002)(upholding Ryce Act against double jeopardy, ex post facto, due process, and equal protection challenges).

¶7Petition denied.

NOTES

¶8[1] Conflict-free counsel was appointed to represent the petitioner on October 7, 2005. The instant pro se petition was filed on October 20, 2005.

/919/so2d/540 · .json · Public domain