LARRY DORTLEY
v.
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.
An inmate's claim that he was incompetent to proceed at trial is procedurally barred when not raised on direct appeal and cannot be pursued through successive postconviction petitions.
[1] A claim of incompetence to stand trial is procedurally barred if not raised on direct appeal.
[2] Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for relitigating issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The postconviction process and the appellate courts do not exist simply to give prisoners something to do while they serve their sentences, and there comes a point in every criminal case that the defendant needs to accept the finality of his judgment and sentence and just do his time.”
Court citing Ferris v. State in addressing Dortley's pattern of successive filings and explaining the need for finality in criminal cases.
Larry Dortley was convicted of murder and armed burglary over forty years ago and sentenced to life imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction but…
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 Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D2022-1650 _____________________________
LARRY L. DORTLEY,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Mark E. Feagle, Judge.
March 27, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Larry L. Dortley was convicted of murder and armed burglary over forty years ago, receiving a life sentence. He did not file a direct appeal but continues to file postconviction motions or petitions recycling claims that have already been rejected.
In this case, for example, Dortley argues that his detention is illegal because the trial court failed to find him competent before trial. The postconviction court denied his claim as successive, explaining that Dortley had previously brought a nearly identical claim and did not obtain relief in that court or on appeal. The court also cautioned Dortley about filing frivolous claims in the future. Undeterred, Dortley brought this appeal.
We affirm. See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 676 (Fla. 2014) (holding that a defendant’s claim that he was incompetent to proceed at trial was procedurally barred because he did not raise the issue on direct appeal); Zuluaga v. State, 32 So. 3d 674, 676– 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining that “[h]abeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal, or which could have been, should have been, or were raised in post-conviction proceedings”).
We also write to address Dortley’s abuse of process in this Court. Our records reflect that Dortley has filed thirteen appeals or petitions here relating to his 1983 judgment and sentence in Columbia County Circuit Court Case No. 82-99-CF. See First District Case Nos. 1D2022-1650, 1D21-0671, 1D20-0812, 1D19- 4261, 1D18-3932, 1D10-5318, 1D10-2119, 1D10-0130, 1D08-2935, 1D08-2936, 1D90-1440, 1D89-1913, and BE-265. In Case No. 1D89-1913, the sole case in which he obtained any relief, this Court reversed on procedural grounds and without reaching the merits of his claims.
Like the postconviction court, we have previously warned Dortley about pursuing frivolous claims. See Dortley v. State, 285 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). His filings, like all papers filed in this Court, require the Court to expend scarce judicial resources. May v. Barthet, 934 So. 2d 1184, 1187 (Fla. 2006). Part of our responsibility is “to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” Id. (quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989)). This Court is imbued with the inherent power to sanction litigants who abuse the legal system. See id. We find that Dortley has reached the point of deserving to be sanctioned. See Ferris v. State, 100 So. 3d 142, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Wetherell, J., concurring) (“The postconviction process and the appellate courts do not exist simply to give prisoners something to do while they serve their sentences, and there comes a point in every criminal case that the defendant needs to accept the finality of his judgment and sentence and just do his time.”).
Accordingly, Dortley shall show cause within twenty days why sanctions should not be imposed on him, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this Court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48–49 (Fla. 1999). We also refer this matter to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action under section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2023).
AFFIRMED. LEWIS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Larry L. Dortley, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davidson v. Nayeli Nadir Chang-Warner (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…trial judge has the inherent power to do those things necessary to enforce its orders, to conduct its business in a proper manner, and to protect the court from acts obstructing the administration of justice." (citation omitted)); Dortley v. State, 383 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) ("[Florida's appellate courts are] imbued with the inherent power to sanction litigants who abuse the legal system." (citation omitted)); Tramel v. Bass, 672 So. 2d 78, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“The inherent powers of a court…
Authorities Cited
- In re McDONALD, 489 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1989)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)
- Heldrado Zuluaga v. State, 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Percival Charles Ferris, Jr. v. State, 100 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Callard v. Braulio L. Baez, 934 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2006)