EDWIN B. HARVEY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that the petitioner is prohibited from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions related to his convictions and sentences due to numerous successive meritless filings.
Petitioner Edwin B. Harvey has repeatedly attempted to collaterally attack his 1991 convictions and sentences, having had his convictions affirmed ove…
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 Pro Se Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
As in Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995): “The number thirteen proves unlucky for petitioner.” That is the number of times petitioner Edwin B. Harvey, who entered no contest pleas, has attempted to collaterally attack in this court his 1991 convictions and sentences after he had his' convictions affirmed in this court over ten years ago. Harvey v. State, 600 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). “Enough is enough.” Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
In fact, more than three years ago, we twice warned Harvey about submitting successive, meritless postconviction claims. See Harvey v. State, 748 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Harvey v. State, 726 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In spite of that warning, he has done so again by filing the instant request for a belated appeal from the denial of his latest postconviction motion. Based upon his numerous and successive meritless pro se filings, we hold that Harvey is prohibited from filing any additional appeals, pleadings, motions or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences in Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court No. 91-550-CFA1 unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept from Harvey, as petitioner or appellant, any further pro se pleadings or filings which relate to that case. See Ellison v. State, 807 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 829 So. 2d 917 (Fla.2002); Jackson v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2001); Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla.1999).
PETITION DENIED.
SAWAYA, J., and COBB, W., Senior Judge concur. . Harvey also had two other cases as well, Case No. 90-1416 and Case No. 91-755, but it appears his sentences in those cases have been served, making it unnecessary for this court to enter an order barring him from submitting pro se filings in those cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Marshall v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ice and an opportunity to respond). After reviewing Marshall’s response, we find it has no merit. Because Marshall has repeatedly abused the judicial system, we think he qualifies for this court’s “Enough is enough” rule. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Therefore, in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, and in order to conserve our judicial resou…
-
Steele v. State, 859 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…uture pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond). We find no merit in Steele’s response and hold that his successive petitions constitute an abuse of the judicial system. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Therefore, in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, and in order to conserve judicial resources, w…
-
Wood v. State, 867 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…nion why he should not be precluded from filing any further pro se pleadings raising these issues in this criminal case. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). See, e.g., Steele v. State, 859 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). AFFIRMED. SHOW CAUSE ISSUED. GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur. . See Wood v. State, 761 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Wood v. State, 650 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Wood v. State, 641 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Jackson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2001)
- Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1999)
- Harvey v. State, 748 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Leger v. Dep't OF Revenue, 748 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- James v. State, 726 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Harvey v. State, 726 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Milan Davich, Jr. v. Norman Bros. Nissan, 807 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)