JAMES ARTHUR LEE APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE.
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.
James Arthur Lee appealed the trial court's denial of his mandamus petition, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal because Lee violated a prior court order prohibiting him from filing pro se appeals or petitions related to his original conviction. The court sanctioned Lee for continuing to file pro se pleadings and imposed a requirement that any future filings related to his case must be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney.
The court sanctioned Lee for violating the prior order and prohibited him from filing any pro se pleading or paper related to his conviction case unless reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida Bar attorney. The court also directed the Clerk to forward the order to the Department of Corrections for consideration of disciplinary action including forfeiture of gain time.
[1] A party previously prohibited from filing pro se appeals or petitions related to a conviction and sentence may be sanctioned for violating that prohibition.
[2] A court may direct the Clerk to refuse to accept pro se pleadings related to a specific case unless reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“by previous order entered by this Court in case number 3D03-1393, James Arthur Lee was prohibited from filing any pro se appeals or petitions related to his conviction and sentence (or related to his prisoner status resulting from his conviction and sentence) in lower tribunal case number 96-6742”
Establishes the prior order that Lee violated by filing the current appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Arthur Lee is an incarcerated individual with a conviction and sentence from case number 96-6742. Lee filed a pro se petition for writ of mandam…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
James Arthur Lee filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. On March 6, 2019, we dismissed this appeal because, by previous order entered by this Court in case number 3D03-1393, James Arthur Lee was prohibited from filing any pro se appeals or petitions related to his conviction and sentence (or related to his prisoner status resulting from his conviction and sentence) in lower tribunal case number 96-6742.1 We further directed Lee to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating this Court's order in 3D03-1393 by continuing to file pro se pleadings with this Court related to lower tribunal case number 96-6742.
Lee has filed a document which we treat as his response to the show cause order. Following our review, we conclude that James Arthur Lee has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating this Court's order in 3D03-1393, by continuing to file pro se pleadings with this Court related to lower tribunal case number 96-6742. We further note that appellant previously attempted to file pro se pleadings in 3D17-1231, resulting in a similar dismissal order.
We prohibit James Arthur Lee from filing any pro se pleading or paper with this Court related to lower tribunal case number 96-6742, or related to his prisoner status resulting from his conviction and sentence in case number 96-6742. We hereby direct the Clerk of this Court to refuse to accept any such pleading or paper relating to lower tribunal case number 96-6742 unless it has been reviewed and signed by *688an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
Additionally, we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a copy of this order to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018).