ROBERT L. FREEMAN, 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.
In this case involving a 12-year-old conviction for sexual battery, the Fifth District Court of Appeal prohibited Robert L. Freeman from filing any further pro se appeals, motions, or petitions related to his conviction and sentence, finding that his successive post-conviction challenges constituted an abuse of the judicial system.
The court held that Freeman's successive post-conviction challenges constitute an abuse of the judicial system. The court prohibited Freeman from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, and petitions relating to his conviction and sentence, and directed that any future pleadings must be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant's future pleadings if the litigant has been provided notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] Repeatedly filing successive and meritless post-conviction challenges constitutes an abuse of the judicial system.
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“We hold that his successive challenges constitute an abuse of the judicial system.”
The court's holding regarding Freeman's post-conviction filings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert L. Freeman was convicted of sexual battery in 1992 and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to 30 years incarceration with a 15-year…
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 Criminal Appeal Reform Act Of 1996 cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
In this 12-year-old case, Robert L. Freeman was convicted of sexual battery. He was sentenced in September 1992 as a habitual violent felony offender to 30 years incarceration, with a 15-year minimum mandatory term. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Freeman v. State, 630 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). He then began his post-conviction assaults. At one point, this court recounted Freeman’s post-judgment challenges to date, stated that his current proceeding was successive, and added: ‘We further warn Freeman that future such motions will be stricken as an abuse of process and he may be barred from filing any further pro se appeals regarding his conviction and sentence.” Freeman v. State, 683 So. 2d 1156, 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Freeman continued his post conviction attacks. This court issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond), directing defendant to respond. He did not. We hold that his successive challenges constitute an abuse of the judicial system. See, e.g., Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004) (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).
Therefore, in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, and in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Freeman from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions relating to his conviction and sentence in the underlying case. Any further pleadings filed in this court relating to his conviction and sentence must be reviewed and signed by an attorney who is 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 Robert L. Freeman regarding Orange County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Case No.l992-CF-266.
AFFIRMED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.
PETERSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anselm Lamonte Wallace v. State, 931 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ience with all defendants); Henderson v. State, 903 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (noting that for many years, defendant has made this claim “and he is wrong. This court is not going to listen to this argument any longer.”); Freeman v. State, 885 So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(holding that there is a need to limit successive claims to give due weight to the finality and presumption of legality of a final judgment and to restore the public’s confidence in our criminal system of justice). According…
-
Napoleon Britt v. State, 931 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…5). See also Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing that frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience); Freeman v. State, 885 So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (noting the need for a limit on successiveness necessary to give due weight to finality and presumption of legality of final judgment and to restore public’s confidence in our criminal system of justice). Accordingly, in or…
-
Weidmann v. State, 934 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…with all defendants); Henderson v. State, 903 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (noting “this court is not going to listen to this argument any longer,” in reference to same claim argued by defendant over more than two decades); Freeman v. State, 885 So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (recognizing that it is necessary to limit successive claims to give due weight to the finality and presumption of legality of a final judgment and to restore the public’s confidence in our criminal system of justice). Acco…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Mouzon v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Freeman v. State, 683 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Weaver v. State, 683 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)