CLAYBOURNE MOBLEY, 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.
Claybourne Mobley appealed an order striking his post-conviction relief motion. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the strike order and, finding abuse of the judicial process through successive collateral attacks on his 1980 conviction, barred Mobley from filing any further pro se pleadings in the case.
The Court affirmed the order striking Mobley's motion and barred him from filing any further pro se pleadings in the case. The Court found that Mobley's repeated filings after being ordered to cease constituted abuse of the judicial process.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is an improper collateral attack on a conviction that has already been affirmed on direct appeal and post-conviction motions.
[2] A party who repeatedly and unsuccessfully attacks a conviction and sentence abuses the judicial process.
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“Mobley is abusing the judicial process by his successive attacks upon his conviction and sentence. In order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Claybourne Mobley from filing with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, pleadings, motions or other documents concerning Orange County Case 1980-CF-2839.”
The court's rationale for imposing the pro se filing bar based on abuse of process and judicial efficiency.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMobley was convicted and sentenced in 1980. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 1981. In 1986, this Court ordered Mobley to …
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.
Mobley appeals an order striking his most recent motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the order because Mobley had previously been prohibited from filing any further pro se pleadings, motions or petitions in the trial court.
In affirming the order, we take the additional step of barring Mobley from filing any further pro se pleadings in this case. Mobley was convicted and sentenced in this case in 1980. His conviction and sentence were affirmed in Mobley v. State, 405 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). After multiple post-conviction motions, this Court ordered Mobley to file no further documents in this case in the trial court or in this Court. See Mobley v. State, 492 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Despite this prohibition, Mobley has continued to file further collateral attacks on his conviction and sentence resulting in the trial court’s prohibition against Mobley filing any further pro se pleadings.
After reviewing Mobley’s latest claim, this court issued a Spencer1 show cause order directing Mobley to demonstrate why he should not be denied further pro se access to this Court relating to his 1980 case. We have reviewed Mobley’s response and find it lacks merit.
Mobley is abusing the judicial process by his successive attacks upon his conviction and sentence. In order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Claybourne Mobley from filing with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, pleadings, motions or other documents concerning Orange County Case 1980-CF-2839. 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.; 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 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Claybourne Mobley v. State, 492 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Grimsley v. State, 972 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)