ROBERT E.H. CARLISLE, 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.
Robert Carlisle challenged his burglary conviction through successive collateral petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his missing wife's failure to testify. The Fifth District Court of Appeal denied his petition and barred him from filing further pro se appeals and pleadings related to his conviction, finding his successive filings constitute an abuse of the judicial system.
The court held that Carlisle's successive petitions constitute an abuse of the judicial system and denied his petition. The court prohibited Carlisle from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, and petitions relating to his conviction and sentence, requiring that all future filings be reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney.
[1] A successive petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may be deemed an abuse of the judicial system.
[2] A court may restrict a pro se litigant from filing future pleadings if it first provides notice and an opportunity to respond.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We find no merit in Carlisle's response and hold that his successive petitions constitute an abuse of the judicial system.”
Establishes the court's core holding that repeated successive petitions are an abuse of the judicial system justifying restriction of pro se filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlisle was convicted by jury of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced as a habitual felony offender. He appealed, raising eight issues, and this cour…
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 Abuse Of Judicial System cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This successive petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel creates another one of our “enough is enough” cases. After a jury trial, Robert E.H. Carlisle was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced as an habitual felony offender. He appealed, raising eight issues. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal in Carlisle v. State, 736 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). He then began attacking his conviction and sentence collaterally.1
In his current petition, Carlisle again argues some, if not all, of his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective because his missing wife was not served with a subpoena to testify at his trial. Because the trial court had previously resolved the factual issue of the subpoena against him, that he previously and unsuccessfully raised in this court’s case No. 5D03-377, and the “new evidence” he describes is neither new nor significant, this court issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond).
We find no merit in Carlisle’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, we prohibit Carlisle from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions relating to his conviction and sentence in his case affirmed by this court in Carlisle v. State, 736 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Any further pleadings filed in this court relating to his judgment and sentence in that case 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 or pleadings from Carlisle regarding Seventh Judicial Circuit Court No. 97-35355-CFAES.
PETITION DENIED.
SHARP, W., PETERSON, TORPY, JJ., concur. . Not counting the motions and petitions he filed with the trial court before resorting to the higher courts, his collateral challenges were: Carlisle v. State, No. 5D00-708 (Fla. 5th DCA May 11, 2000) (dismissed for failure to pay filing fee); Carlisle v. State, 773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (petition stricken); Carlisle v. State, No. 5D00-3516, (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 12, 2000) (cert.denied); Carlisle v. State, No. 5D01-771, (Fla. 5th DCA June 15, 2001) (first petition for belated appeal denied); Carlisle v. State, No. 5D01-3625 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 3, 2002) (petition to consolidate first two Rule 3.850 motions denied); Carlisle v. State, No. 5D02-319, 829 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug.20, 2002) (denying motion to relinquish jurisdiction and affirming denial of Rule 3.850 motion); Carlisle v. State, 821 So. 2d 293 (Fla.2002) (petition dismissed); Carlisle v. State, No. 5D03-377, 845 So. 2d 212, 2003 Fla.App. Lexis 4288 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar.18, 2003) (denial of third Rule 3.850 motion affirmed).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fisher v. State, 852 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…me served on probation in this case. Thus, this motion is successive and improper, as well as without merit. We warn Fisher against filing additional successive and improper motions seeking collateral relief in this criminal case. Carlisle v. State, 849 So. 2d 1146 [*425] (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.…
-
Wilson v. State, 881 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. We find no merit in appellant’s latest appeal and affirm. Moreover, we hold that his successive petitions constitute an abuse of the judicial system. See, e.g., Carlisle v. State, 849 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Accordingly, we order Wilson to show cause within 30 days from the date of this opinion why he should not be precluded from filing any further pro se pleadings raising these is…
-
Kinsey v. State, 854 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…notice and an opportunity to respond. Because we find no merit to the response, and because Kinsey has repeatedly abused the judicial system in this regard, we find he qualifies for this court’s “enough is enough” rule. See, e.g., Carlisle v. State, 849 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Werts v. State, 722 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Davis v. [*831] State, 705 So. 2d 133, 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Therefore, in accordance with the Criminal Appeal R…
Authorities 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)
- Davis v. State, 773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Robert E.H. Carlisle v. State, 773 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)