ANTHONY FIELD MARSHALL, 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.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Marshall's sixth successive Rule 3.850 motion and imposed a bar on future pro se filings related to his 1983 murder conviction, requiring any further pleadings to be signed by a licensed attorney.
A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further pro se appeals and pleadings relating to a specific conviction when the litigant has repeatedly abused the judicial system by filing successive motions without merit.
[1] A court may restrict future pro se filings by a litigant who has repeatedly filed successive motions without merit, requiring any further pleadings to be signed by a lice…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarshall appealed the denial of his sixth Rule 3.850 motion raising a successive claim related to his 1983 first-degree murder conviction and life sen…
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 Criminal Appeal Reform Act Of 1996 cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
After Marshall appealed the denial of his sixth Rule 3.850 motion, which raised a successive claim, this court issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (holding that the court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice 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 resources, we prohibit Marshall from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his 1983 conviction for first-degree murder and sentence to life imprisonment which were affirmed in Marshall v. State, 459 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Any further pleadings filed in this court relating to his judgment and sentence in that case must be reviewed and signed by an attorney who is 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 or pleadings from Marshall related to lower court case number CR82-388.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2012-04, 131 So. 3d 720 (Fla. 2013)…TEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. INS. NO. STAT. None Attempt_777.04(1) 51 Assault 784.011 8.1 Comments It is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had the actual intent to do harm or the ability to carry out the threat. Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The name of (victim) in elements 2 and 3 must be the same person. There is no statutory definition for the term “electronic communication.” In the absence of case law, trial .judges will have to fashion their own definition, p…
-
Bell v. State, 179 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…as a defendant arrested for the commission of a crime for which he or she is deemed innocent until' proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. As a matter of “grace ... [probation is also] subject to the trial court’s discretion.” Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Because of these principles: - ' A probation revocation hearing is more informal, the charging affidavit need not comply with the requirements indictments and informations must meet, the [*352] strict rules- of evidence c…
-
O'Leary v. State, 109 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…tion or a member of his family.” State v. Wise, 664 So. 2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). At least two other district courts of appeal have adopted the Wise court’s three-element framework for analyzing section 836.10 violations. See Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Suggs v. State, 72 So. 3d 145, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Although Wise, Sai-di and Suggs each involved a letter or letters as the form of communication, in 2010 the legislature amended section 836.10 to include “electronic…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)