DONNIE LEE PRINCE, 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 appellant is prohibited from filing any future pro se pleadings in this court challenging his conviction and sentence.
The appellant has repeatedly filed pro se motions challenging the same sentence, despite prior rulings. The court previously ordered him to seek leave…
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 Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Prince v. State, 762 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), we explained that appellant had filed his seventh pro se post-conviction motion under rule 3.850 raising the same sentencing issue he has previously raised, and after issuing an order to show cause, and considering appellant’s response, we concluded that he had abused the judicial process and was required to first seek leave of court before filing any notice of appeal or petition challenging his current sentence.
Appellant has continued to seek leave to appeal, challenging the same sentence which was affirmed in Prince v. State, 523 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In response to his latest petition, we issued an order to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing future pro se pleadings in this court challenging his conviction and sentence. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). We have considered appellant’s response, which continues to raise the same sentencing issue, and it is accordingly ordered that appellant is prohibited from filing any future pro se pleadings in this court challenging his conviction and sentence in Case No. 85-4581CF10D.
Appellant 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Grimsley v. State, 972 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Starr Griffin v. State, 962 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- McCRAY v. State, 762 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Donnie Lee Prince v. State, 762 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Height v. State, 968 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Nails v. State, 976 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)