ANDREAS OBOJES, 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.
Andreas Obojes appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his 1990 armed sexual battery conviction and 40-year departure sentence. The court affirmed the denial and imposed sanctions prohibiting Obojes from filing further pro se pleadings challenging his conviction without counsel, finding his repetitive Apprendi/Blakely arguments constituted an abuse of process.
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition and prohibited Obojes from filing any further pro se pleadings challenging his conviction in this case unless represented by counsel, finding that his repetitive challenges constitute an abuse of the legal process.
[1] A defendant's repetitive challenges to a sentence, which have been previously adjudicated on the merits, may constitute an abuse of the legal process.
[2] A court may prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se pleadings when such filings constitute an abuse of the legal process and adversely affect the court's limited r…
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“a jury was required to find the facts of 'premeditation' and 'professional manner' used to justify his departure sentence, which he believed exceeded the statutory maximum”
Summarizes Obojes's Apprendi/Blakely argument that jury findings were required for sentencing facts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceObojes was convicted in 1990 of three counts of armed sexual battery and sentenced to three concurrent 40-year departure sentences on September 22, 19…
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 Statutory Maximum cases and more on FLexlaw
[*603] PER CURIAM.
Andreas Obojes appeals an order of the circuit court denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we affirm. Obojes was convicted in 1990 of three counts of armed sexual battery, a life felony, and was given three concurrent departure sentences of 40 years in prison on September 22, 1990. See State v. Obojes, 604 So. 2d 474 (Fla.1992). He has filed numerous motions to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), contending that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), a jury was required to find the facts of “premeditation” and “professional manner” used to justify his departure sentence, which he believed exceeded the statutory maximum. The circuit court has denied each motion on the merits, and this court has affirmed each order on appeal in cases 1D00-4653, Reeves-Obojes v. State, 789 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); 1D01-3768, Reeves v. State, 810 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); 1D02-4144, Obojes v. State, 837 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); and 1D05-1868, Obojes v. State, 911 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
We directed Obojes to show cause, pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999), why he should not be barred from further challenging his conviction unless he were represented by counsel, and in his response, Obojes agreed to allow this court to appoint an attorney for him to argue this issue, and then proceeded to reiterate the Apprendi/Blakely argument. He did not provide this court with a reason to permit him to continue raising this issue.
We conclude from our review that Obo-jes’s repetitive challenges to his sentence are an abuse of the legal process that has had and will have an adverse effect upon this court’s limited resources if we were to allow additional challenges. Accordingly, we prohibit Obojes from filing any further pro se pleadings in this court challenging his conviction in Duval County Circuit Court Case Number 16-1989-CF-6576, regardless of the remedy sought or theory raised, unless he is represented by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. We further direct the clerk of this court not to accept any additional pro se filings in this case from Obojes.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ardis v. Ardis, 130 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…NCTIONS IMPOSED. PADOVANO, ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. . See e.g., Baldwin v. State, 104 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Williams v. State, 102 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Ward v. State, 75 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Obojes v. State, 946 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). . Van Zant v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 94 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). . Pflaum v. Pflaum, 974 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). . Johnson v. Wilbur, 981 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). . Winford v. Pella Window and Doors, case…
-
Percival Charles Ferris, Jr. v. State, 100 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…d fewer cases than Appellant. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 102 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (five cases); Neal v. State, 65 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (six cases); Cash v. State, 50 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (nine cases); Obojes v. State, 946 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (five cases); Baker v. State, 939 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (four cases). However, this court has also tolerated more cases than Appellant has filed before prohibiting further pro se filings. See, e.g., Thames v. State, 93 S…
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- State v. Andreas Obojes, 604 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1992)