ANSELM LAMONTE WALLACE, 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.
Anselm Wallace appealed the trial court's denial of his postconviction motions seeking relief from a 1993 plea to attempted second-degree murder, armed robbery, and firearm possession. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding his claims procedurally barred as untimely or previously raised, and imposed sanctions prohibiting future pro se filings in these cases.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that Wallace's claims are procedurally barred because some were unsuccessfully raised eight to twelve years earlier and the remainder are either untimely or meritless. The court further found the motions frivolous and an abuse of process.
[1] Postconviction claims that were previously raised and unsuccessfully litigated are procedurally barred.
[2] Postconviction claims that are untimely filed under rule 3.850 are procedurally barred.
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“the defendant's claims are procedurally barred because some of them were unsuccessfully raised eight or twelve years ago, and the rest are either untimely rule 3.850 claims or without merit”
Establishes the basis for affirming denial: procedural bar and untimeliness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThirteen years before this appeal, Wallace pleaded nolo contendere to attempted second-degree murder, armed robbery with a firearm, and possession of …
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 Presumption Of Legality cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Anselm Wallace (defendant) is appealing the trial court’s order denying his latest postconviction motion as well as the denial of a subsequently filed amended postcon-viction motion. We affirm.
Thirteen years ago, in exchange for receiving reduced charges, the defendant pled nolo contendere in Case Number 93-31110 to committing the crimes of attempted second-degree murder, armed robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He also pled nolo contendere to violating his community control in Case Number 90-3410. As part of the plea arrangement, the defendant agreed to be sentenced as a habitual offender. The defendant filed two pro se motions in the trial court seeking postconviction relief. The trial court denied both motions. We affirm, holding that the defendant’s claims are procedurally barred because some of them were unsuccessfully raised eight or twelve years ago, and the rest are either untimely rule 3.850 claims or without merit. See Hope v. State, 766 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.
We further conclude that the instant motions are frivolous and an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (explaining: “Enough is enough.”); see also Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (explaining that frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience 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).
Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit the defendant from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Volusia County, Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Case Number 90-3410 and Case Number 93-31110. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning these cases from the defendant. Any more pleadings regarding these cases will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED; Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)…or her conviction, abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims.”); accord Wallace v. State, 931 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (affirming the denial of a “frivolous” pro se postconviction motion and prohibiting the defendant from filing further pro se pleadings). Not only are such postconviction motions subject to sanctions; they also may result in…
-
Gervase Johnson v. State, 939 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla.2005); Wallace v. State, 931 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).…
Authorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Hope v. State, 766 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Henderson v. State, 903 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Freeman v. State, 885 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)