SHERNERD RICHARDSON, v. MICHAEL CERVONE, STATE ATTORNEY, BY AND ON BEHALF OF D.O.C.; MICHAEL D. CREWS, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SHERNERD RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 1D12-5516 WILLIAM CERVONE, STATE ATTORNEY, BY AND ON BEHALF OF D.O.C.: MICHAEL D. CREWS, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. ___________________________/ Opinion filed July 1, 2013. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction. Shernerd Richardson, pro se, Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. PER CURIAM. ORDER ON ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS We issued an opinion in this case on February 8, 2013, which prohibited petitioner from any future pro se filings in this court concerning the judgments and sentences in Levy County Circuit Court case number 38-2005-CF-00252. See Richardson v. Cervone, 2013 WL 466257 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 8, 2013). On March 5, 2013, petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case challenging the same judgments and sentences. Because this was a violation of the opinion, petitioner was directed to show cause why further sanctions should not be imposed against him. Petitioner has filed a notice indicating that he declines to respond to the show cause order on sanctions. Because petitioner has violated the terms of this court s February 8, 2013, opinion, petitioner is barred from future pro se filings in this court. The clerk of the court is directed not to accept any future filings from Shernerd Richardson or by any party on his behalf unless the pleadings are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. A certified copy of this opinion shall be provided to the Florida Department of Corrections to be forwarded to the appropriate institution or facility for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2013). No further pleadings will be entertained in this case, including any motion for rehearing. 2 PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.