CHARLIE T. WASHINGTON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Charlie T. Washington, convicted and sentenced in two cases, petitioned for a belated appeal. The court denied the petition and imposed sanctions prohibiting him from filing further pro se appeals, pleadings, or motions related to his convictions without attorney representation, invoking the "enough is enough" rule due to his history of repeated and frivolous collateral attacks.
The court denied the petition for belated appeal and precluded Washington from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences unless reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney. The court found Washington qualified for the "enough is enough" rule due to his abuse of judicial resources.
[1] A court may deny a petition for belated appeal when the petitioner has repeatedly filed successive and improper collateral attacks on prior convictions and sentences.
[2] A defendant who has been repeatedly warned against further pro se collateral attacks may be precluded from filing additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petiti…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When this court affirmed the denial of his third Rule 3.800(a) motion in 2003, we expressly warned Washington that further collateral attacks on his convictions and sentences would be successive and improper.”
Establishes the court's prior explicit warnings to Washington about the impropriety of successive collateral attacks
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington was convicted and sentenced in two cases. He previously filed multiple Rule 3.800(a) motions attacking his convictions and sentences. The c…
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 Successive Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Charlie T. Washington, who was convicted and sentenced in two cases, petitions for a belated appeal. We deny the petition. When this court affirmed the denial of his third Rule 3.800(a) motion in 2003, we expressly warned Washington that further collateral attacks on his convictions and sentences would be successive and improper. Washington v. State, 838 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We also warned the defendant against further pro se collateral attacks when he appealed the denial of his fourth Rule 3.800(a) motion in 2004. Washington v. State, 867 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Undaunted, the defendant has continued to attack his convictions and sentences in his two cases.
Because the defendant continues to waste the judicial resources of this court, we issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). We have received and find no merit to his response. As Washington has repeatedly abused the judicial system in this regard, he qualifies for this court’s “enough is enough” rule. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We hold that Washington is precluded from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences for case numbers 98-1849-CFMA and 99-381-CFMA, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Putnam County, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept from Washington, as petitioner or appellant, any further pro se pleadings or filings relating to those cases. See Jackson v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 908, 122 S.Ct. 2365, 153 L.Ed.2d 186 (2002); Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla.1999); Medberry v. State, 824 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), mandamus denied, 874 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.2004); Isley.
PETITION FOR BELATED APPEAL DENIED.
ORFINGER, MONACO and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Booker v. State, 968 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…974-CF-1404/C, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The Clerk of this court shall not accept any further pro se pleadings or appeals from Appellant that relate to this case. See Washington v. State, 959 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). AFFIRMED. PALMER, C.J., SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Jackson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2001)
- Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1999)
- Medberry v. State, 824 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Washington v. State, 838 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Washington v. State, 867 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Eldridge v. Portuondo, 536 U.S. 908 (U.S. 2002)
- Jackson v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Miss., 536 U.S. 908 (U.S. 2002)