JEFFREY DAVIS, 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 denied Davis's petition for belated appeal and imposed a bar on his pro se filings in the underlying case due to his pattern of successive, meritless filings.
A defendant who files numerous successive meritless pro se petitions attacking the same conviction may be precluded from filing further pro se appeals without attorney representation.
[1] A defendant filing successive meritless pro se petitions attacking the same conviction may be barred from filing further pro se appeals and required to proceed through co…
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 intelligenceJeffrey Davis had his convictions and sentences in Case No. 00-7844 affirmed on appeal. Despite a prior warning that further meritless pro se filings …
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 Successive Petitions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Jeffery Davis’ petition for belated appeal is denied. Davis’ original convictions and sentences in Case No. 00-7844 were affirmed by this court. See Davis v. State, 796 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Based on Davis’ numerous and successive meritless pro se filings this court warned Davis that he would be subject to denial of further pro se access to this court if he filed any additional petitions or appeals attacking his convictions and sentences in Case No. 00-7844. See Davis v. State, 844 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Despite this warning, the defendant has filed yet another pro se petition attacking his conviction and sentence in Case No. 00-7844. The defendant was ordered to show cause why he should not be denied further access to this court pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). We find his response unconvincing.
The defendant is precluded from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences in Case No. GO-7844, unless reviewed and filed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept from Davis, as petitioner or appellant, any further pro se pleadings or filings which relate to this case. See Jackson v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla.2001); Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla.1999); Gaines v. State, 789 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Petition for Belated Appeal DENIED.
SAWAYA, C.J., SHARP, W., and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 855 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…rt has precluded Davis from filing any additional pro se appeals, motions, or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences in case No. GO-7844, unless reviewed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida, see Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); however, Davis filed this appeal prior to issuance of that mandate.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Jackson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2001)
- Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1999)
- Gaines v. State, 789 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Davis v. State, 844 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)