CLIFFORD GREEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2005-06-03
No. 5D04-3604
SAWAYA, C.J., THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.
902 So. 2d 923 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2005)

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.

Synopsis

Clifford Green, serving five life sentences for murder and attempted murder stemming from armed robberies, appeals the summary denial of two postconviction motions. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms the denial and imposes a bar on Green from filing future pro se appeals and motions relating to his conviction and sentence.


Holding

The court affirms the summary denial of Green's postconviction motions and prohibits Green from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his conviction and sentence. All future filings must be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney.


Headnotes

[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant's future filings if the litigant is provided notice and an opportunity to respond.

[2] The filing of a motion that can be filed at any time does not grant a litigant unlimited ability to attack a sentence.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion can be filed at any time. However, that does not allow Green carte blanche to attack his sentence ad infinitum.”

Establishes that while Rule 3.800(a) permits timely filing, it does not authorize unlimited repetitive attacks on a sentence.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Green shot and murdered one victim and attempted to murder four others during armed robberies. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Green entered a guilty pl…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Clifford James Green, having entered a guilty plea over a decade ago and received the agreed-upon sentence, now appeals the summary denial of his two latest postcon-viction motions. Contrary to what is asserted, the issue he now raises has been raised previously, although framed a bit differently.1

Green shot and murdered one victim and attempted to murder four others during the course of his armed robberies. Pursuant to a plea agreement wherein both sides stipulated to a departure either way without written reasons, he entered a guilty plea to 16 counts, five of which had a recommended guideline sentence of life in prison. Upon receiving five life sentences, Green initiated an appeal that was dismissed and filed numerous postconviction pleadings.2

In the instant appeal, we ordered Green to show cause why he should not be precluded from filing further pro se motions because we found Green’s arguments and numerous filings to be without merit. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond). In response, Green asserts that he is not abusing the process because a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion can be filed at any time. However, that does not allow Green carte blanche to attack his sentence ad infini-tum. We have carefully reviewed Green’s response in its entirety and find that good cause has not been demonstrated.3 Again we must say, “[e]nough is enough.” Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004); Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

We hereby prohibit Green from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, and/or petitions relating to his conviction and sentence in the underlying case. We also prohibit Green from circumventing this bar by attacking his sentence via his companion case, case number 90-490. 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 future pro se filings or pleadings from Clifford James Green in Volusia County, Seventh Judicial Circuit Court case number 90-489.

AFFIRMED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

SAWAYA, C.J., THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur. . See Green v. State, 826 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Green v. State, 619 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

. Green v. State, 619 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Green v. State, 635 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Green v. State, 651 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Green v. State, 683 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Green v. State, 731 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Green v. State, 826 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Green v. State, 860 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

.Green also asserts that the trial court should have warned him of the possibility of sanctions. However, the trial court has nothing to do with this court's decision to sanction Green.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw