JOSEPH CARTER, 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.
Joseph Carter, a long-term prisoner who has filed numerous pro se motions over decades, was prohibited from filing further pro se appeals and pleadings without attorney representation after the court found he had not shown good cause to continue filing such motions.
The court held that Carter had not shown good cause to continue filing pro se appeals and motions, and therefore prohibited him from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his convictions and sentences unless reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney in good standing.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant from filing successive pleadings if the court first provides notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] A litigant may be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to specific convictions and sentences.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond”
Establishes the legal standard for restricting pro se filings, derived from State v. Spencer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter was convicted of burglary and sexual battery in 1982 and sentenced to 15 and 137 years respectively. Since his initial conviction and affirmanc…
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 Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph Carter (“Carter”) was convicted of burglary and sexual battery. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to 15 years and 137 years, respectively. Carter appealed, and this Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Carter v. State, 410 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Since then, Carter has filed numerous pro se motions in the trial court. The trial court denied all of these motions, and this Court subsequently affirmed most of them on appeal. See, e.g., Carter v. State, 3D08-317, 2008 WL 2081229 (Fla. 3d DCA April 11, 2008); Carter v. State, 952 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Carter v. State, 932 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Carter v. State, 937 So.2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Carter v. State, 866 So.2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (aff'd in part and rev’d in part); Carter v. State, 857 So.2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Carter v. State, 856 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Most recently, Carter filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State responded to Carter’s petition, requesting sanctions against him pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). The tri*254al court issued an order to show cause. Carter filed a supplemental habeas petition more than thirty days after the show cause order. The trial court entered an order granting the State’s motion to impose sanctions. Carter appealed.
In response to the instant petition, we ordered Carter to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing successive pro se motions in this Court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (FIa.1999) (holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond). After carefully considering Carter’s response to this Court’s show cause order, we conclude that good cause has not been shown.
Accordingly, Carter is now prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions both here and in the lower court relating to his convictions and sentences in case number F79-5B76. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to lower court case number F79-5376 unless an attorney, who is a duly licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing, has reviewed and signed them.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jenkins v. State, 92 So. 3d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…PER CURIAM. Alfonso Jenkins petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. This Court ordered Jenkins to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing successive pro se motions in this Court. See Carter v. State, 1 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond). After considering Jenkins’ response to this Court’s show cause order, we conclude that good caus…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Carter v. State, 410 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Velez v. State, 866 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Hargis v. State, 937 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Carter v. State, 937 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)