DONALD E. MITCHELL, 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.
Defendant's ninth collateral appeal challenging his sentencing was denied, and he was barred from further pro se filings attacking his 1989 convictions after admitting he relied on wrong law and raised issues previously decided on the merits.
A defendant who has exhausted available arguments and repeatedly filed collateral attacks on the same conviction may be barred from further pro se filings.
[1] A defendant may be barred from further pro se filings attacking a conviction after exhausting available arguments through multiple collateral appeals.
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 intelligenceDonald Mitchell appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentencing error. This was his ninth collateral appeal or petition attackin…
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
GRIFFIN, J.
The defendant has appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) “Motion To Correct Sentencing Error.” Because this is his ninth collateral appeal/petition, this court issued a Spencer1 show cause order, ordering defendant to show cause why he should not be denied further pro se access to this court for any proceeding to further attack the conviction and sentence rendered below. The defendant’s response is refreshing and commendable: he admits he was wrong. He admits he relied upon the wrong law in asserting his claim, and he admits that the exact same issue was ruled upon on the merits by this court in the past. He says he is illiterate and relied upon the bad advice of other inmates. He asks that this court not bar him from further access, but instead issue a warning.
Notwithstanding appellant’s excuse, he is the one responsible for his court filings. He has apparently exhausted all available arguments concerning his sentence, and he has exhausted the court’s capacity for consideration of attacks on his 1989 Brevard County convictions. Appellant is therefore barred from any further pro se filings directed to these convictions.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., and TORPY, JJ., concur. . State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).