Title: Green v. Tucker

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC12-85 
____________ 
 
DANNY A. GREEN,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
KENNETH S. TUCKER, etc.,  
Respondent. 
 
[October 4, 2012] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Danny A. Green, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of 
habeas corpus with this Court alleging that his sentences are illegal.1  We denied 
the petition in this case by way of an unpublished order,2 determining that the 
petition was procedurally barred.3  In disposing of the petition in this case, we 
                                          
 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. 
 
2.  Green v. Tucker, 88 So. 3d 149, 2012 WL 1382259, at *1 (Fla. 2012). 
 
3.  See Denson v. State, 775 So. 2d 288, 289 (Fla. 2000) (“[A]n 
extraordinary writ petition cannot be used to litigate or relitigate issues that were or 
could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings.”); 
Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1992). 
 
 
- 2 - 
expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Green.  See 
generally Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a). 
 
In 2005, Green was convicted and sentenced for committing two sex 
offenses in Alachua County, Florida (circuit court case number 01-2004-CF-2871-
A).  Green’s sentence was to be followed by ten years of sex offender probation.  
Yet, in 2008, the sentencing court entered an order sua sponte removing the 
ordered sex offender probation nunc pro tunc to November 10, 2005, the date 
Green was sentenced.  The sex offender probation was removed because it caused 
Green’s sentences to exceed the statutory maximum for the offenses.  Shortly 
afterward, Green filed a motion to correct sentencing error in which he 
inexplicably alleged that the sentencing court erred by correcting his sentence nunc 
pro tunc to November 10, 2005, the date he was sentenced.  The sentencing court 
denied the motion on the merits.4  Similarly, the sentencing court denied, on the 
merits, Green’s subsequent motion to correct illegal sentences.5  Thus, it is clear 
from the record before this Court6 that Green is not entitled to any relief based on a 
                                          
 
 
4.  See State v. Green, No. 01-2004-CF-2871-A (Fla. 8th Cir. Ct. Dec. 5, 
2008). 
 
5.  See State v. Green, No. 01-2004-CF-2871-A (Fla. 8th Cir. Ct. Jan. 6, 
2011). 
 
6.  We observe that Danny A. Green has repeatedly and unsuccessfully 
attempted to collaterally attack his conviction as illegal as well.  Because it 
adjudged that Green compiled a pattern of abusing the judicial process below, the 
 
 
- 3 - 
claim that his sentences ordered in circuit court case number 01-2004-CF-2871-A 
are illegal.   
 
Since 2009, Green has filed six previous extraordinary writ petitions with 
this Court seeking various forms of relief related to his convictions or sentences.  
We observe that in none of the petitions that Green filed in this Court, has any 
relief been granted to him.7  Each of Green’s extraordinary writ petitions filed with 
this Court has been devoid of merit or inappropriate for consideration.   
 
We issued an order directing Green to show cause why he should not be 
prohibited from filing any subsequent pro se filings in this Court that are related to 
circuit court case number 01-2004-CF-2871-A.8  After considering Green’s 
response, we conclude that it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be 
                                                                                                                                        
sentencing court entered an order barring any future pro se filings pertaining to his 
criminal case.  See State v. Green, No. 01-2004-CF-2871-A (Fla. 8th Cir. Ct. Apr. 
21, 2011). 
 
7.  See Green v. Tucker, 77 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 2011) (No. SC11-1977) 
(habeas corpus petition denied) (table decision); Green v. McNeil, 47 So. 3d 1288 
(Fla. 2010) (No. SC10-1499) (habeas corpus petition denied) (table decision); 
Green v. McNeil, 26 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 2009) (No. SC09-1655) (habeas corpus 
petition dismissed as unauthorized) (table decision); Green v. McNeil, No. SC09-
904 (Fla. June 3, 2009) (habeas corpus petition transferred); Green v. McNeil, 18 
So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 2009) (No. SC09-670) (mandamus petition denied) (table 
decision); Green v. McNeil, No. SC09-185 (Fla. Feb. 10, 2009) (habeas corpus 
petition transferred). 
 
8.  See generally State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (“[I]t is 
important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before 
preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and 
sentence.”). 
 
 
- 4 - 
imposed.  We further conclude that Green’s procedurally barred petition filed in 
this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before this Court by a state prisoner.  
See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2011).   
 
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future 
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Danny A. 
Green that are related to circuit court case number 01-2004-CF-2871-A.  Our order 
will apply to Green’s filings pertaining to circuit court case number 01-2004-CF-
2871-A unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The 
Florida Bar.  Counsel may file on Green’s behalf if counsel determines that the 
proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.9  Furthermore, since 
we have found Green’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, 
pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2011), to forward a certified copy 
of this opinion to the Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where 
Danny A. Green is incarcerated.10 
 
It is so ordered. 
 
                                          
 
 
9.  In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants 
whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing scarce 
judicial resources in this Court.  See, e.g., Gaffney v. Tucker, 94 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 
2012); James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011); Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 
(Fla. 2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008). 
 
10.  See, e.g., Gaffney, 94 So. 3d at 558; James, 75 So. 3d at 232; Steele, 14 
So. 3d at 224. 
 
 
- 5 - 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
Original Proceedings – Habeas Corpus 
 
 
Danny Allen Green, pro se, Defuniak Springs, Florida,  
 
for Petitioner 
 
Jennifer Alani Parker, General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Respondent