KENNETH L. GRIMSLEY, 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.
Kenneth Grimsley appeals the denial of his fifth rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his forty-year habitual violent felony offender sentence for robbery with a firearm. The court affirmed the denial and prohibited Grimsley from filing further pro se pleadings in the case, finding he was abusing the judicial process through successive attacks on his conviction and sentence.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Grimsley's motion, finding that even if cognizable under rule 3.800(a), the record clearly showed Grimsley entered an open plea with no agreed disposition and was aware of facing up to life imprisonment. The court prohibited Grimsley from filing any further pro se pleadings concerning the case.
[1] A trial court may strike a motion for post-conviction relief when the movant has previously been prohibited from filing any further pro se pleadings.
[2] A court may bar a party from filing any further pro se pleadings in a case when the party has repeatedly abused the judicial process through successive collateral attacks…
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“the record clearly shows that Grimsley entered an open plea to the bench, aware that he faced up to a life sentence on this charge”
Establishes that Grimsley's plea was not contingent on any agreed sentence and that he knew the maximum exposure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrimsley was sentenced to forty years as a habitual violent felony offender for robbery with a firearm. He claims this exceeds a thirty-seven-year sen…
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 Disciplinary Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth L. Grimsley appeals the denial of his fifth rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.1 In this successive motion, Grimsley once again argues that his forty-year habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”) sentence on the charge of robbery with a firearm is illegal because it exceeds the thirty-seven-year HVFO sentence that he agreed to at the time of his plea. Even if this claim were cognizable under rule 3.800(a), the record clearly shows that Grimsley entered an open plea to the bench, aware that he faced up to a life sentence on this charge. Therefore, the trial court once again properly denied Grimsley’s claim, citing to portions of the plea transcript that refute it.2
After reviewing Grimsley’s latest successive claim, this court issued a Spencer
show cause order directing Grimsley to demonstrate “why he should not be denied further pro se access to the Court for any proceeding to further attack the conviction and sentence rendered below in Marion County Circuit Court case no. 96-1003-A-Z.” We have carefully reviewed Grims-ley s response and find that it too lacks merit.
At this point, Grimsley is abusing the judicial process by his successive attacks upon his conviction and sentence. In order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Kenneth L. Grimsley from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Marion County Circuit Court case no. 96-1003-A-Z. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case. Any further pleadings regarding this case 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.”) The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED; future pro se filings PROHIBITED; certified opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
THOMPSON, ORFINGER, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. .See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800. Grimsley has also previously filed in this court two petitions for belated appeal, one appeal from the denial of his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, two original petitions for writ of habeas corpus, and three appeals from the denial of petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed at the trial court level.
. Although the transcript makes reference to a thirty-seven year plea offer, it is clear that this offer had been rejected prior to the plea proceeding, and that Grimsley knowingly and voluntarily entered an open plea to the bench, with no agreed disposition.
. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nails v. State, 976 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…(Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); Grimsley v. State, 972 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). AFFIRMED; future pro se filings PROHIBITED; certified opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections. SAWAYA, LAWSON, and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . Both times that Nails filed rule 3.850 motions in his two cases, the trial cour…
-
Claybourne Mobley v. State, 976 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…09, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”) The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.; Grimsley v. State, 972 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). AFFIRMED; future pro se filings PROHIBITED; certified opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections. MONACO, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . State v. Spencer, 751…
-
Donnie Lee Prince v. State, 980 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ppellant is cautioned that violation of this directive will result in referral to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures. § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2007). See e.g. Nails v. State, 976 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Grimsley v. State, 972 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Griffin v. State, 962 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Friss v. State, 968 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA), mand. denied, 973 So. 2d 1121, 2007 WL 4322579 (Fla.2007). WARNER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)