JAMES THOMAS KINSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2003-09-19
No. 5D03-1546
PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
854 So. 2d 830 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2003)

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.

Synopsis

James Kinsey, convicted of first-degree murder in 1990 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year minimum mandatory term, sought to file additional pro se appeals and collateral attacks on his conviction. The court imposed restrictions on his future pro se filings, finding he had repeatedly abused the judicial system through numerous frivolous collateral attacks.


Holding

The court prohibited Kinsey from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, and petitions relating to his 1990 conviction and sentence. Any future pleadings must be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney. The clerk was directed not to accept further pro se filings from Kinsey related to his case.


Headnotes

[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant's future filings if the court first provides the litigant with notice and an opportunity to respond.

[2] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing additional appeals, pleadings, motions, and petitions relating to a specific conviction and sentence if the litigant ha…

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond”

Establishes the legal standard under State v. Spencer for restricting 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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Kinsey was convicted in 1990 of first-degree murder of his aunt and sentenced to life in prison with a 25-year minimum mandatory term. His conviction …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PLEUS, J.

PLEUS, J.

In 1990, Kinsey was tried and convicted of the first-degree murder of his aunt. He was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum mandatory term of 25 years. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court. Kinsey v. State, 595 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). He thereafter made a number of collateral attacks upon that conviction and sentence.1

We have now received Kinsey’s response to our show cause order issued pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999), which stands for the proposition that a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant 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. 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 Reform Act of 1996, and in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Kinsey from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions relating to his 1990 conviction and sentence. 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 Kinsey related to Ninth Judicial Circuit Court No. 89-CF-3364.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Kinsey filed a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief which was denied by the trial court on November 13, 1992, which he did not appeal. He filed a second Rule 3.850 motion which the trial court denied and this court affirmed. Kinsey v. State, 632 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). He sought a writ of habeas corpus to obtain a belated appeal but his petition was denied. Kinsey v. State, No. 94-1288 (Fla. 5th DCA June 13, 1994). He then switched to federal court, petitioning the Middle District for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC § 2254. It was denied on October 3, 1995. He filed an unsuccessful motion for relief from judgment with the United States District Court in June 1996. He again sought a writ of habeas corpus in this court to obtain a belated appeal, but his petition was denied. Kinsey v. State, No. 97-2557 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 25, 1997). He petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for habeas corpus; that court also denied relief. Kinsey v. State, 705 So. 2d 570 (Fla.1998). He filed yet another petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court; it was denied. Kinsey v. State, No. 00-902 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 10, 2000). He again petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for habeas corpus. They again denied relief. Kinsey v. State, 776 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2000). This time, Kinsey is appealing the denial of his third 3.850 motion on the basis of "new evidence” which he does not have.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw