D'ARCY L. ROBINSON, 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 held that the trial court did not err in summarily denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence as successive and repetitive.
Appellant Robinson has repeatedly challenged his habitual violent felony offender sentence, with his latest challenge being summarily denied by the tr…
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 Abuse Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant D’Arcy Robinson appeals a trial court order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), challenging his habitual violent felony offender sentence in this case. This is at least the fourth time Robinson has raised the same challenge to his sentence, and the fourth time his challenge has been rejected in the trial court and on appeal. The trial court did not err in rejecting this latest challenge as successive and repetitive of the claim earlier rejected several times. We affirm.
This court issued an order to show cause why Robinson should not be prevented from filing successive and identical pro se challenges pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). His response did not provide a legally sufficient basis for entitlement to continue raising the same 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 filings are an abuse of the legal process and will have an adverse affect on this court’s limited resources if allowed to continue. We therefore prohibit him from filing any future pro se pleadings in this court challenging his habitual violent felony offender sentence in case number 95-11287 CF10A. Any further pro se pleadings on this issue in this court will be summarily rejected by the Clerk of this court.
No rehearing will be entertained.
Affirmed.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. State, 55 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…proceedings to promote the orderly administration of justice, including the efficient use of the limited judicial resources available to the system and litigants, is firmly established. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999); Robinson v. State, 949 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Hepburn v. State, 934 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Considering Appellant’s incessant initiation of proceedings in this court, and finding this appeal frivolous, we find that…
-
Bowers v. State, 992 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…iling any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his sentences on the ground described above. Any further pleadings on this issue filed pro se will be summarily rejected by the clerk of this court. Robinson v. State, 949 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). No rehearing will be entertained. SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Carter v. State, 931 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)