MICHAEL CURTIS DONOVAN, 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.
Michael Curtis Donovan, a pro se litigant who had filed twelve successive challenges to his sexual battery conviction over ten years, sought a belated appeal. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, finding his filings constitute an abuse of the judicial system, barred him from making further pro se filings related to his 1994 conviction without attorney review and signature.
The court held that Donovan's successive challenges constitute an abuse of the judicial system and prohibited him from filing any additional pro se pleadings relating to his 1994 conviction and sentence. All future filings must be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney. The Clerk was directed not to accept further pro se filings from Donovan regarding his Brevard County case.
[1] A court may restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides the litigant notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] Repeatedly raising arguments previously heard, considered, and rejected constitutes an abuse of process.
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“Donovan attempts to achieve by volume filing that which cannot be done by meritorious argument.”
Establishes the court's finding that Donovan's strategy relies on quantity of filings rather than legal merit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonovan entered a knowing, voluntary plea to sexual battery in 1994. Over a ten-year period, he filed at least twelve successive filings seeking relie…
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 Presumption Of Legality cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this ten year old ease, Michael Curtis Donovan entered a knowing, voluntary plea to the crime of sexual battery. For the twelfth time, Donovan seeks relief in this court. This time, Donovan seeks a belated appeal.
Evidently, Donovan attempts to achieve by volume filing that which cannot be done by meritorious argument. Since Donovan has been “filing documents faster than this court can dispose of them,” Rooney v. State, 699 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and since we have found his arguments and numerous filings to be without merit, we issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999), which held that a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond. In response, Donovan reiterates the grievances and arguments previously made. Donovan claims this court is mistaken about the facts, which it is not. He also asserts this court is mistaken about the law, which it is not. Donovan does not realize how well this court knows the facts of his 1994 case and its extensive history. See Demo v. State, 833 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“This court retains copies of its criminal appeals, including bench memos, dating back to 1989 ... and earlier. Thus our determination that a post-conviction motion is successive need not depend solely on attachments by the trial court”).
We do not take the action of barring a defendant from further pro se pleadings lightly. However, we find no merit in Donovan’s response to the order to show cause. Therefore, we hold that his successive challenges to his judgment and sentence constitute an abuse of the judicial system. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S105, — So. 2d --, 2004 WL 439879 (Fla. March 11, 2004) (holding that a limit on successive claims is necessary to give due weight to the finality and the presumption of legality of a final judgment and to restore the public’s confidence in our criminal system of justice); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (re-raising arguments “heard, considered, and rejected ... is an abuse of process”). Further, we warn Donovan that he cannot ignore this procedural bar by attacking, in his case no. 99-29181, his conviction in case no. 94-19184.
In accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, we prohibit Donovan from any additional pro se filing relating to his conviction and sentence in the underlying case. Any further filings in this court relating to his conviction and sentence must be reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. The Clerk of the Court of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Michael Curtis Donovan regarding his Brevard County case identified as 18th Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 94-19184.
GRIFFIN, THOMPSON, and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…a. 5th DCA 2004), “The burden on our staff from such ‘frequent filers’ is also great. This court’s post-conviction caseload has increased by 90% in the last 10 years without any accompanying increase in the central staff.” See also Donovan v. State, 868 So. 2d 667, 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (defendant “attempts to achieve by volume filing that which cannot be done by meritorious argument”). Therefore, in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, and in order to conserve our strained judicial reso…
-
Levory William Hickmon v. State, 887 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…peal Reform Act of 1996 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Furthermore, meritless and successive claims are time consuming and impede the efficiency of the court. See Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Donovan v. State, 868 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). It is therefore ordered that Hickmon is precluded from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences in Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 01-574-CFB, an…
-
Levory W. Hickmon v. State, 96 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…orm Act of 1996 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Furthermore, meritless and successive claims are time consuming and impede the efficiency of the court. See Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d [*1123] 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Donovan v. State, 868 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We therefore barred Mr. Hickmon from any other pro se filings. Hickmon v. State, 887 So. 2d 408, 408-09 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). This did not deter him in any way and he repeated his behavior as it related to his 2002 Seminole Coun…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Rooney v. State, 699 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Demo v. State, 833 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)