FRED WILKINSON, 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.
Court affirmed denial of successive Rule 3.800(a) motion and prohibited the appellant from filing further pro se pleadings in the underlying cases due to abuse of process.
A trial court properly denies a successive Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence and may be supported by an appellate prohibition on further pro se filings when the appellant abuses the judicial process.
[1] A successive Rule 3.800(a) motion may be denied and an appellate court may prohibit further pro se filings by a litigant who abuses the judicial process through repeated…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Enough is enough.”
The court cited Isley v. State for the proposition that repeated successive motions on the same issue constitute sufficient abuse to warrant prohibition of further filings.
Fred Wilkinson filed his fourth Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging habitual offender sentences in two Flagler County cases from 1989, attempting to reli…
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 Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Fred Wilkinson appeals the denial of his fourth rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.1 In this successive motion, Wilkinson once again challenges his habitual offender sentences entered in Flagler County case nos. 89-304 and 89^08. The trial court properly denied Wilkinson’s motion as successive, and we issued a Spencer
show cause order. Wilkinson responded by once again attempting to argue the merits of his underlying motion.
At this point, Wilkinson is abusing the judicial process with his successive attacks on his sentences. In order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Fred Wilkinson from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Fla-gler County, Seventh Judicial Circuit Court case nos. 89-304 and 89-408. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning these cases. Any further 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. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”).
AFFIRMED; future pro se filings PROHIBITED.
SAWAYA, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800.
. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winningham v. State, 964 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wilkinson v. State, 954 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)