DALE LEE LENOIR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Court affirmed denial of collateral challenge to sentence and imposed restrictions on pro se filings after finding no good cause for eighth post-conviction motion.
A defendant who has filed eight collateral challenges to his sentence may be restricted from further pro se filings absent good cause and attorney review.
[1] A trial court may restrict a pro se litigant from filing further papers in a case without attorney review when the litigant has filed multiple frivolous motions and made…
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 intelligenceDale Lee Lenoir was convicted in 1992 of attempted second-degree murder and has filed eight collateral challenges to his sentence, falsely claiming in…
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 Sanctions For Abuse Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
For the eighth time since his 1992 conviction for attempted second-degree murder, Dale Lee Lenoir collaterally challenges his sentence.1 The trial court denied this latest effort as time-barred, and noted that “[t]he defendant falsely states in his motion that his is only his second motion attacking his judgment.” We affirm the trial court’s order. This Court entered an order to show cause why Lenoir should not be barred from further pro se filings, and why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to sections 944.279 and 944.28(2), Florida Statutes (2007), for filing a frivolous or malicious action and for making false representations to the Court. Lenoir timely replied, and we will not forward a recommendation for those sanctions at this time. However, we do conclude that no good cause has been shown, and we therefore direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any further papers relating to circuit court case number 91-27323 unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing. Additionally, and absent a showing of good cause, any such further and unauthorized pro se filings by the defendant will subject him to appropriate sanctions. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999).
Affirmed.
. This number includes Lenoir's petition for writ of mandamus filed with the Florida Supreme Court, as well as his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.