LAWRENCE SIMPKINS, 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.
Lawrence Simpkins, a death-row inmate, appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion for the twelfth time. The court found the appeal frivolous and an abuse of process, affirmed the denial, prohibited Simpkins from filing further pro se pleadings in this case, and referred the matter to the Department of Corrections for potential disciplinary action.
The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 3.800(a) motion, finding it improperly successive and without merit. The court concluded the appeal was frivolous and an abuse of process, and prohibited Simpkins from filing further pro se pleadings concerning this case without bar membership.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief that is improperly successive and without merit is correctly denied.
[2] A party who repeatedly asserts erroneous legal interpretations and abuses the legal process may be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings.
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“He was convicted of a 1995 capital sexual battery by an adult on a child less than twelve years old and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment under sections 794.011(2)(a) and 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1995).”
Establishes the underlying conviction and sentence that is the subject of multiple appellate challenges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimpkins was convicted in 1995 of capital sexual battery by an adult on a child less than twelve years old and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonmen…
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.
The appellant Lawrence Simpkins appears here for the twelfth time. He was convicted of a 1995 capital sexual battery by an adult on a child less than twelve years old and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment under sections 794.011(2)(a) and 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1995). This time, he appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion which was correctly denied as improperly successive and without merit. Consequently, this court issued a Spencer Show Cause Order to Simpkins to explain why he is not abusing the legal process. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). We have carefully reviewed his response, and it does not show good cause. Instead, it demonstrates that Simpkins obstinately persists in asserting erroneous interpretations of the law.
We 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 Simpkins’ appeals will continue, we prohibit Lawrence Simpkins from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings or papers concerning Volusia County, Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 97-2126. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings or pleadings concerning this case from Simpkins. Any further pleadings or papers regarding this case 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. Further, the Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See section 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“A prisoner who is found by a court ... to have brought a frivolous or malicious collateral criminal proceeding, which is filed after September 30, 2004, or who knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth brought false information or evidence before the court, is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections.”) See Henderson v. State, 903 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[Fjrivolous criminal appeals do the criminal defendant no good. They clog the court system and, worse, they hurt meritorious criminal appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with the entire class of criminal defendants.”), quoting from United States v. Cooper, 170 F. 3d 691, 692 (7th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED; Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
PALMER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (112 total)
-
Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)…973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (certifying a statutory finding regarding a petition for belated appeal to the Department and stating, "We have not suffered dishonesty lightly in the past and we will not relax our intolerance now”); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (finding a postconviction motion frivolous and certifying the finding to the Department "for consideration of disciplinary procedures”).…
-
Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk of this Court is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution as provided in section 944.09, Florida Statutes. See Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). AFFIRMED; Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED. PETERSON, GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.…
-
Svoboda v. State, 932 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)….09. See also Nixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Miller v. State, 917 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Wilson v. [*547] State, 916 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Cole v. State, 913 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Valentine v. State, 873 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Based upon the commissioner’s recommendation, we deny Svoboda’s petition for belated appeal. In light of the assertion made by Svoboda in his petition, under penalty…
Previewing 3 of 112 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Henderson v. State, 903 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)