RICKY BERNARD HARRIS, 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.
The court held that the denial of the pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence was proper because the motion was successive and barred by a prior court order.
Appellant filed a fourth pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. The lower court had previously entered an order barring him from filing further…
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 Pro Se Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Harris appeals the denial of his fourth pro se motion to correct illegal sentence in this case. The motion was clearly successive and we therefore affirm.
We note that the lower court rejected this motion pursuant to a prior order barring Harris from filing any further pro se motions to correct his sentence. This order was entered after Harris was given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se pleadings. The court found Harris’ response “inadequate” and further found that Harris “continues to circumvent the rules prohibiting successive review of issues.”
Consistent with the abovementioned order and in order to conserve judicial resources, Harris is prohibited from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions attacking the legality of his sentence in the underlying case. Any pleadings or papers filed in this Court attacking the legality of his sentence must be reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The Clerk of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se pleadings or filings from Harris attacking the legality of his sentence in this case.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKENNA v. State, 111 So. 3d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Fox v. State, 892 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). EVANDER, COHEN and BERGER, JJ., concur.…