KEION WARE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A pro se extraordinary writ petition filed while a defendant is simultaneously represented by counsel in criminal proceedings must be dismissed.
[1] A pro se extraordinary writ petition must be dismissed when filed in the appellate court while the petitioner is simultaneously represented by counsel in the underlying c…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We reaffirm our holding in Logan and Johnson to dismiss pro se extraordinary writ petitions filed in this Court while a defendant is simultaneously being represented by counsel in ongoing criminal proceedings in either the trial or appellate court.”
The court's explanation for the dismissal, citing binding precedent from Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 282 (Fla. 2009).
Keion Ware, representing himself, filed a writ of prohibition in the appellate court challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to recuse the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Representation By Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 7, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1912 Lower Tribunal No. F20-11402
________________
Keion Ware,
Petitioner,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition. Keion Ware, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Petitioner Keion Ware, pro se, seeks a writ of prohibition based on the trial court’s denial of his motion to recuse the trial judge. Because Petitioner is currently being represented by counsel—and counsel has not adopted the motion to recuse—we dismiss. See, e.g., Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 282 (Fla. 2009) (“We reaffirm our holding in Logan and Johnson to dismiss pro se extraordinary writ petitions filed in this Court while a defendant is simultaneously being represented by counsel in ongoing criminal proceedings in either the trial or appellate court.”). 1 Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003). 2 Johnson v. State, 974 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2008).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)
- Johnson v. State, 974 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2008)