LOUIS ROBENSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Louis Robenson appealed a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion asserting newly discovered evidence in his 1994 criminal case. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding that Robenson had repeatedly filed successive and improper motions attacking his judgment over many years, constituting an abuse of process.
The court affirmed the summary denial of Robenson's motion, finding it to be successive and improper and constituting an abuse of process.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief that is successive and improper constitutes an abuse of process.
[2] A defendant may be barred from filing additional matters with a court regarding a criminal judgment if subsequent filings are successive and improper, unless co-signed by…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This is another defendant who has over-pled his 1994 criminal case beyond the pale of "enough is enough."”
Establishes the court's concern that Robenson has filed excessive numbers of post-conviction motions attacking the same judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobenson was convicted in a 1994 criminal case, with his convictions and sentences affirmed on direct appeal in 1996. Over the following years, he fil…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
Robenson appeals from a summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting newly discovered evidence. We affirm.
This is another defendant who has over-pled his 1994 criminal case beyond the pale of “enough is enough.” Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). His convictions and sentences in that case were affirmed per curiam on appeal. See Robenson v. State, 683 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 725 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1042, 119 S.Ct. 1341, 143 L.Ed.2d 504 (1999).
Among the various proceedings filed in this court relating to Robenson’s 1994 criminal case are the following:
(1) Denial of Rule 3.850 motion. Affirmed. See Robenson v. State, 778 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
(2) Denial of Rule 3.850 motion. Affirmed. See Robenson v. State, 788 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 794 So. 2d 606 (Fla. Aug. 24), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 673, 151 L.Ed.2d 586 (2001).
(3) Appeal of denial of motion for new trial. Dismissed, Robenson v. State, Case No. 01-221 (2/19/01).
(4) Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Denied. Robenson v. State, Case No. 01-1878 (8/1/01).
(5) Denial of Rule 3.800(a) motion. Affirmed. See Robenson v. State, 793 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
(6) Denial of Rule 3.800(a) motion. Affirmed. See Robenson v. State, 826 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA July 9, 2002).
The current motion is a rambling, unclear, fifty-page document. From what is decipherable, it appears Robenson’s complaints could or should have been known at the time he filed his direct appeal or his first Rule 3.850 motion. They are now successive and improper and constitute an abuse of process. Accordingly, we warn Robenson that if he files an additional proceeding attacking his 1994 criminal judgment, which is also successive and improper, we will bar him from filing any additional matters with this court regarding his 1994 criminal case, unless they are co-signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in this state. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Whitaker v. Alabama, 526 U.S. 1042 (U.S. 1999)
- Berntson v. Indiana Division of Family and Children, 526 U.S. 1042 (U.S. 1999)