ROBERT WOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sanctions For Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
In Wood v. State, 867 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), appellant was ordered to show cause why he should not be precluded from filing further pro se pleadings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). We have carefully considered appellant’s response and find that good cause has not been shown. Appellant’s claim that it was not his intention to “vex, harass or waste the Courts’ judicial time and effort” is belied by his repeated pleadings and appeals rearguing the validity of his sentence.
Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, appellant is prohibited from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions relating to his conviction and sentence in the underlying case. Any pleadings or papers filed in this court regarding said conviction and sentence must be reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in this state. The clerk of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se pleadings or filings from appellant in Orange County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 90-10695.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2003)…must be established by preponderance of the evidence.” In analyzing whether a defendant’s consent to a search is voluntary, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances around the granting of consent to the search. See Norman v. State, 879 So. 2d 643, 646-47 (Fla.1980). When the validity of a search rests on consent, the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given. See Reynolds, 592 So. 2d at 1086. In a situation where ther…
-
Olmo v. Rehabcare Starmed/SRS, 930 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…d this way: [W]e have consistently held that a claim for impairment or permanent disability benefits made before a claimant has reached MMI[1] or received 98 weeks of temporary benefits is premature. See, e.g., G. Pierce Woods Mem’l Hosp. v. Lewis, 879 So. 2d 643, 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (finding claim for PTD premature absent a showing of MMI or applicable “exception to the MMI requirement”); Metro. Title & Guar. Co. v. Muniz, 806 So. 2d 637, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Until an impairment rating is assigned,…
-
Cooper v. Buddy Freddy's Rest. & Travelers Ins. Co., 889 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…r.” Accordingly, we have consistently held that a claim for impairment or permanent disability benefits made before, a claimant has reached MMI or received 98 weeks of temporary benefits is premature. See, e.g., G. Pierce Woods Mem’l Hosp. v. Lewis, 879 So. 2d 643, 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (finding claim for PTD premature absent a showing of MMI or applicable “exception to the MMI requirement”); Metro. Title & Guar. Co. v. Muniz, 806 So. 2d 637, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Until an impairment rating is assigned,…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Wood v. State, 867 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)