CHARLES CAMAROTO, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUISE POMAR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The several Petitions for Writ of Mandamus are hereby denied. Further, the petitioner is banned from filing further' pro se motions or extraordinary petitions for writs in this court. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). His successive claims, taken in the context of petitioner’s other appeals/petitions, constitute an abuse of process. Any further pleadings filed by Charles Camaroto in this court must be reviewed and signed by an attorney, licensed to practice law in this state. The clerk of the court of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from the petitioner, except that he will be allowed to appeal an adverse ruling on any pending Rule 3.850 or Rule 3.800(a) motion if the petitioner properly complies with the requirements of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c)(6); cf. Basse v. State, 740 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1999).
PETITIONS DENIED.
THOMPSON, C.J., COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Non-Parties v. The League OF Women Voters OF Fla., 150 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ctly determined that the appellants’ established First Amendment privilege must yield involves “ ‘an application of law to fact ... subject to de novo review.’ ” Varela v. Bemachea, 917 So. 2d 295, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Slaughter v. State, 830 So. 2d 955, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)). “[T]he First Amendment safeguards an individual’s right to participate in the public debate through political expression and political association.” McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, — U.S. —, —, 134 S.Ct. 1434, 1448…
-
Varela v. Bernachea, 917 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…995, 996 (Fla.1987); Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bowen v. Bowen, 347 So. 2d 675 [*298] (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Moreover, the “trial court’s application of law to fact is subject to de novo review.” Slaughter v. State, 830 So. 2d 955, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The pertinent facts below were largely uncontested; it is the trial court’s application of the factual determinations to the question of whether Bernachea overcame the presumption of a gift that is in dispute on appeal. Acc…
-
Camaroto v. State, 851 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…. See Case Nos. 01-636, 01-637, 01-2456, 02-344, 02-755, 02-1525, 02-1527, 02-1664, 02-1670. This court prohibited the defendant from any further pro se filings with the exception of direct appeals of post-conviction motions. See Camaroto v. Pomar, 830 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). . See Polk v. State, 820 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Freeman v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), rev. denied, 805 So. 2d 806 (Fla.2001).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Basse v. State, 740 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1999)