CHARLIE T. WASHINGTON, 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.
Charlie T. Washington appeals the summary denial of his fourth Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his sentences. The trial court found the motion successive and an abuse of process, and the appellate court affirmed, warning Washington that future similar filings may result in sanctions barring him from filing pro se collateral attacks without attorney sponsorship.
The court affirmed the trial court's summary denial of the motion as successive and an abuse of process. The court reiterated its previous warning and stated that future successive and repetitive relief filings may result in sanctions, including an order barring Washington from filing additional collateral attacks without the co-signature and endorsement of a licensed Florida attorney.
[1] A trial court may summarily deny a motion filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a) if the motion is successive and constitutes an abuse of process.
[2] Repetitive motions filed by convicted defendants that waste judicial resources may result in sanctions.
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“It is a waste of judicial attention and effort for trial courts and appellate courts to have to consider such repetitive motions filed by convicted defendants.”
Establishes the court's rationale for denying successive motions and discouraging repetitive filings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington has filed multiple collateral challenge motions over several years, including two Rule 3.850 motions, a motion to modify sentence, and four…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charlie T. Washington appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion, his fourth such motion.1 The trial court found Washington’s instant motion was successive and an abuse of process because it “appears he is again claiming that he should have received a guideline as opposed to a departure sentence and that his sentences exceed the statutory maximum for the particular offenses.” The court further cautioned Washington that “further like motions may result in an order to show cause why [he] should not be barred from further pro se filings.” We agree and affirm.
This is the second warning that our judicial system has meted out to Washington. In an earlier appeal to this court involving the denial of Washington’s third Rule 3.800(a) motion, this court warned Washington that further successive motions “may result in sanctions.” Washington v. State, 838 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In that opinion, the court set forth Washington’s earlier collateral challenges as follows:
1. Washington filed a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 which was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. See Washington v. State, 800 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
2. Washington filed a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) which was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. See Washington v. State, 814 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). 3. Washington filed a-motion pursuant to rule 3.850, which was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. See Washington v. State, 833 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
4. Evidently Washington also filed a second motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) which was denied, but no appeal has been taken, and a motion to modify sentence which was also denied.
Washington, 838 So. 2d at 700. This court now addresses denial of Washington’s fourth Rule 3.800(a) motion.
Washington is testing the patience of this court. Accordingly, we reiterate:
It is a waste of judicial attention and effort for trial courts and appellate courts to have to consider such repetitive motions filed by convicted defendants. We warn Washington against filing additional motions or proceedings seeking repetitive relief, or relief which should have been brought or sought in direct appeal proceedings or prior motions. If successive and repetitive relief from his convictions are brought in the future they may result, in sanctions, including an order from this court barring him from filing additional collateral attacks on those convictions and sentences without obtaining the co-signature and endorsement by a person. licensed to practice law in this state. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Washington, 838 So. 2d at 700.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, C.J., SHARP, W. and TORPY, JJ., concur. . Washington’s judgment and sentences were previously affirmed on direct appeal. See Washington v. State, 768 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simon v. State, 904 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…[*488] been raised on direct appeal or in previous motions. Duncan v. State, 728 So. 2d 1237, 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see Johnson v. State, 899 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Lewis v. State, 900 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Washington v. State, 867 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). “[A]ny citizen, including a citizen attacking his or her conviction [or sentence], abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby dimi…
-
Washington v. State, 959 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…be successive and improper. Washington v. State, 838 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We also warned the defendant against further pro se collateral attacks when he appealed the denial of his fourth Rule 3.800(a) motion in 2004. Washington v. State, 867 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Undaunted, the defendant has continued to attack his convictions and sentences in his two cases. Because the defendant continues to waste the judicial resources of this court, we issued a show cause order pursuant to State v.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Washington v. State, 838 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Griffin v. State, 800 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Washington v. State, 800 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)