OSCAR CARTER, 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 affirmed the denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence and will no longer accept pro se filings from the appellant in these cases.
Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which was denied. He has a history of filing confusing and frivolous postconviction motions a…
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 Sanctions For Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Oscar Carter, appeals the denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence. Because the motion was confusing and without merit, we affirm. Appellant has filed at least five prior postconviction attacks on his convictions and sentences in lower court case numbers 97-1395 CF10 and 97-3287 CF10. Because all of appellant’s other filings have been equally confusing and frivolous, this court ordered appellant to show cause why this court should not impose the sanction of no longer accepting pro se appellate filings on these cases. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
In response, appellant filed another tortuously confused document titled, “Motion for Standard of Review,” that repeated frivolous arguments that were previously denied and then affirmed on appeal. Appellant also claimed that he did not previously file a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion in this case. This court’s records show that appellant has previously filed two appeals from the denial of prior rule 3.850 motions (Case Nos. 4D00-1189 and 4D02-509). We affirmed the orders denying those motions as the motions lacked merit.
Appellant’s repeated filing of frivolous appeals is diminishing this court’s ability to consider legitimate claims. Accordingly, we will no longer accept pro se filings from this appellant on .these cases. Any legal documents shall be filed on appellant’s behalf by an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida.
Affirmed.
WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D'Arcy L. Robinson v. State, 949 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…challenge. All that he argued is that rule 3.800(a) does not bar successive motions. However, that does not mean that the successive motions may be filed on the identical issue previously raised and rejected by the trial court. See Carter v. State, 931 So. 2d 1045, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Appellant’s repeated filing of frivolous appeals is diminishing this court’s ability to consider legitimate claims.”); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). Robinson’s repetitive…
-
Johnson v. State, 941 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…on the basis that his pleadings have become an abuse of process. As this court first said ten years ago, “Even Herman Melville had to come to an ending in Moby Dick.” Johnson v. State, 680 So. 2d 1101, 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see Carter v. State, 931 So. 2d 1045, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Appellant’s repeated filing of frivolous appeals is diminishing this court’s ability to consider legitimate claims.”); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”); see also Britt v. State…
-
Harris v. State, 939 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ow cause order. After receiving Harris’ response, we affirm the trial court and hold that Harris is barred from further pro se filings in this court. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”); Carter v. State, 931 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Appellant’s repeated filing of frivolous appeals is diminishing this court’s ability to consider legitimate claims.”); see also Britt v. State, 931 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding defendant’s pro se filings were frivolo…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)