WARREN ALPHONSO JOHANS, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a post-conviction motion, finding it successive and an abuse of process. The court also prohibited the appellant from filing further pro se pleadings in the case to conserve judicial resources.
No, the appellate court held that the trial court's denial was correct because the motion was indeed successive and improper. The court further concluded the appeal was frivolous and an abuse of process.
[1] A post-conviction motion raising an issue previously resolved on the merits is successive and improper.
[2] Appellate courts may prohibit a party from filing further pro se pleadings in specific cases to conserve judicial resources and prevent abuse of process.
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“The trial court denied the motion both on the merits and procedurally as successive because Johans had raised this same issue in a prior Rule 3.800(a) motion, which was resolved adversely to him on the merits.”
Explains the basis for the trial court's denial of the post-conviction motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWarren Alphonso Johans appealed the summary denial of his latest post-conviction motion. The trial court denied the motion both on the merits and as p…
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
PER CURIAM.
In two separate cases, Warren Alphonso Johans was adjudged guilty of his violent crimes and sentenced as an habitual felony offender. His direct appeals were affirmed 11 and 14 years ago, respectively. Johans v. State, 638 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) [No. 89-1868-CFA]; Johans v. State, 578 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) [No. 89-1924-CFA]. After many unsuccessful post-conviction attacks, he now appeals from the summary denial of his latest post-conviction motion.
The trial court denied the motion both on the merits and procedurally as successive because Johans had raised this same issue in a prior Rule 3.800(a) motion, which was resolved adversely to him on the merits. Johans v. State, 827 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dism’d, 829 So. 2d 918 (Fla.2002). The court’s ruling is correct because Johans’ motion is clearly successive and improper. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003); Knox v. State, 873 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA), dism’d, 884 So. 2d 22 (Fla.2004).
We likewise conclude this appeal is frivolous and an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”); O’Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 establishes intent of Legislature that the terms and conditions of collateral review and procedural bars to collateral review be strictly enforced).
Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources and because we expect Johans’ appeals will continue, we prohibit Warren Alphonso Johans from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings or papers concerning Marion County Fifth Judicial Circuit Court Case Nos. 89-1924-CFA and 89-1868-CFA. The Clerk of this Comet is directed not to accept any further pro se filings or pleadings concerning these cases from Johans. Any further pleadings or papers regarding these cases will be summarily rejected by the Clerk of this Court, unless that pleading or paper is filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. AFFIRMED; Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED.
SAWAYA, C.J, PLEUS and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marinich v. Special Edition Custom Homes, LLC, 1 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…a. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Lemon v. Groninger, 708 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). Generally, the existence of a compulsory counterclaim will render a judgment on the original complaint nonfinal for appeal purposes. See Madura v. Turosienski, 901 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); City of Haines City v. Allen, 509 So. 2d 982, 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The facts of this case are analogous to those in Stone v. Venetian Isles Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 431 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and Allen, 509 So. 2d…
-
Cooper v. State, 917 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ive ha-bitualization process ... does not constitute a claim of an ‘illegal’ sentence.” Edwards v. State, 760 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We affirm. We conclude this appeal is frivolous and an abuse of process. See, e.g., Johans v. State, 901 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we prohibit Harold W. Cooper from filing any further pro se pleadings or papers concerning Brevard County Circuit Court Case Numbers 05-1991-CFA-12573 and/or 05-1991-CFA-15062 with this court. The clerk of this cour…
-
Jimenez v. Ratine, 954 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332, 1335 (Fla.1990). Further, if the form of the motion is sufficient — i.e., the motion is procedurally sufficient — it does not matter whether the substance of the allegations are true. Madura v. Turosienski, 901 So. 2d 396, 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that, in evaluating a motion to disqualify, the court must accept the facts alleged as true). Indeed, under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(f), a judge is required to immediately grant a disqualification…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Pula v. Dixon, 578 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Knox v. State, 873 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)