What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the petition for a writ of prohibition because the petitioner filed pro se while represented by counsel, which is generally not allowed.

Who is affected by this decision?

Shirley Mears Davis, the petitioner, is directly affected; the State was the respondent but did not appear.

The dismissal is subject to any timely motion under the Florida appellate rules; the petitioner could seek further relief only through authorized post-decision motions or other appropriate filings.

Can this dismissal be challenged?

The decision notes it is not final until disposition of any timely authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331, so procedural motions could be filed; further appeals would depend on the availability of appellate relief and compliance with rules.

Shirley Mears Davis v. State of Florida

Docket 1D2025-2929

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealDismissed

Filed: May 6, 2026 · today
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 1D2025-2929

Original petition for writ of prohibition filed by a criminal defendant pro se

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Shirley Mears Davis's original petition for a writ of prohibition. The court held that the petition could not proceed because a criminal defendant generally may not proceed pro se while represented by counsel, citing Logan v. State. The dismissal was per curiam, with concurrence from the three judges, and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely motion under the appellate rules is resolved.

Issues Decided

Whether a criminal defendant may proceed pro se in seeking a writ of prohibition while represented by counsel
Whether the petition for writ of prohibition was procedurally proper under controlling precedent (Logan v. State)

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the established rule from Logan v. State that, as a general matter, a criminal defendant cannot proceed pro se while represented by counsel. Because the petitioner proceeded pro se despite representation, the petition was procedurally improper and dismissal followed. The court issued a brief per curiam dismissal applying that precedent.

Authorities Cited

Logan v. State846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331

Parties

Petitioner: Shirley Mears Davis
Respondent: State of Florida
Judge: Per Curiam (Lewis, Winokur, and Neff, JJ.)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-05-06

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult counsel
If the petitioner has counsel, discuss whether counsel will pursue the writ or other remedies rather than proceeding pro se.
2
Consider filing authorized motions
If appropriate, file a timely motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 to seek rehearing or clarification before the dismissal becomes final.
3
Evaluate representation status
Confirm whether you are actually represented; if not, consider formally seeking leave to proceed pro se through the appropriate court procedures.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the petition for a writ of prohibition because the petitioner filed pro se while represented by counsel, which is generally not allowed.
Who is affected by this decision?: Shirley Mears Davis, the petitioner, is directly affected; the State was the respondent but did not appear.
What happens next?: The dismissal is subject to any timely motion under the Florida appellate rules; the petitioner could seek further relief only through authorized post-decision motions or other appropriate filings.
Can this dismissal be challenged?: The decision notes it is not final until disposition of any timely authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331, so procedural motions could be filed; further appeals would depend on the availability of appellate relief and compliance with rules.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                         No. 1D2025-2929
                  _____________________________

SHIRLEY MEARS DAVIS,

    Petitioner,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Respondent.
                  _____________________________


Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Proceedings.


                          May 6, 2026


PER CURIAM.

     DISMISSED. See Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)
(holding that generally, a criminal defendant cannot proceed pro
se while represented by counsel).

LEWIS, WINOKUR, and NEFF, JJ., concur.
              _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________
Shirley Mears Davis, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.




                                2