EDMUND WASHINGTON, 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 court affirmed the conviction and barred the appellant from filing further pro se pleadings in this case due to abuse of the judicial process.
A pro se litigant who abuses the judicial process by filing frivolous appeals may be barred from further pro se filings in that case.
[1] A court may bar a pro se litigant from filing further pleadings in a case when the litigant has abused the judicial process through frivolous appeals.
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 frivolous filings justify barring pro se access.
Edmund Washington filed a pro se appeal challenging his convictions and sentences. After the court issued a Spencer show cause order, Washington respo…
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
EVANDER, J.
We issued a Spencer1 show cause order directing Edmund Washington to demonstrate “why he should not be denied further pro se access to this Court for any proceeding to further attack the convictions and sentences rendered below....” Washington’s response was simply to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. A reviewing court has discretion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with the appeal even where a notice of voluntary dismissal is timely filed. State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995). We have decided to proceed with this appeal and we find that Washington’s appeal is without merit. We further find that Washington has abused the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.
Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Washington from fifing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Orange County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Case No. 92-CF-1634. 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, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“enough is enough”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED; PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.
SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caiazzo v. Am. Royal Arts Corp., 73 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…retion to retain jurisdiction in this case because we consider this issue to be of great public importance.”); Brown v. McNeil, 22 So. 3d 741, 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (declining to dismiss an appeal after a voluntary dismissal); Washington v. State, 982 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“A reviewing court has discretion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with the appeal even where a notice of voluntary dismissal is timely filed.”); Hammerl v. State, 779 So. 2d 410, 411 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“A district…
-
Ulysses Brown v. McNEIL, 22 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ces. Appellant responded by requesting that this appeal be voluntarily dismissed. “A reviewing court has discretion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with the appeal even where a notice of voluntary dismissal is timely filed.” Washington v. State, 982 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see also, State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995). In this case, we decline to dismiss the appeal. This appeal is frivolous because it has no arguable basis in law or fact. See [*743] § 57.085(9)(a), Fla. Stat. Appell…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)