DOUGLAS R. BROWN, 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.
Douglas Brown appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss a robbery conviction, arguing the underlying statute was unconstitutional for lacking proper enacting clause language. The court affirmed the denial and, finding Brown's repetitive appeals an abuse of process, prohibited him from filing further pro se documents challenging his conviction without counsel.
The court held that the robbery statute is constitutional and the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. Once laws are codified in the Florida Statutes, the constitutional requirements regarding enacting clause language do not apply to the published version.
[1] A statute codified in the Florida Statutes is not rendered unconstitutional by the absence of enacting clause language required by Article III, section 6 of the Florida C…
[2] A party who repeatedly files meritless appeals may be prohibited from filing further pro se documents in the appellate court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Once the laws passed by the legislature are codified for publication in the Florida Statutes, the requirements and restrictions of Article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution, do not apply.”
Establishes the legal principle that constitutional enacting clause requirements do not apply to codified statutes in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was convicted of robbery under section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1997), and sentenced to thirty years as a habitual violent felony offender. His…
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 Codification Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of robbery under section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1997), and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment as a habitual violent felony offender. His judgment of conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court in Brown v. State, 740 So.2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (table). Since then, appellant has filed in this Court twelve separate appeals, including the instant one and another that is currently pending in case number 1D08-1453, of the lower court’s orders denying his various postconviction motions and petitions challenging the above robbery conviction. As regards the appeals in case numbers 1D00-2691; 1D00-3090; 1D02-0886; 1D02-2081; 1D03-4084; 1D04-0831; 1D05-1769; 1D05-5253; 1D07-1215; and 1D08-2221, all have been affirmed without opinion by this Court, with the exception of one that was dismissed as being premature.
The instant appeal stems from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s “Motion To *1198Dismiss” his conviction and sentence on the basis that the original information charging him with robbery failed to invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction because section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1997), was unconstitutional for failing to include the enacting clause language set forth in Article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion because his argument, which is also raised in Case 1D08-1453, is without merit. Once the laws passed by the legislature are codified for publication in the Florida Statutes, the requirements and restrictions of Article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution, do not apply. See Santos v. State, 380 So.2d 1284, 1285 (Fla.1980). Thus, section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1997), is not unconstitutional due to the absence of the “enacting clause” language.
However, this does not end the matter before us. The state has filed a motion requesting this Court to prohibit appellant from filing any future pro se documents in this Court stemming from this or any other case on the basis that appellant’s persistence in filing meritless appeals has amounted to an “ ‘egregious abuse of the judicial process.’” State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (quoting from and approving Spencer v. State, 717 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). We have considered the state’s motion, as well as appellant’s response thereto, and have concluded that appellant’s repetitive attacks on his conviction and sentence have indeed amounted to an abuse of the legal process “and will have an adverse effect upon this Court’s limited resources” if allowed to continue. Baker v. State, 939 So.2d 167, 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); accord Birge v. State, 620 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Thus, we grant the state’s motion in part, and prohibit appellant from filing any further pleadings in this Court challenging his conviction in Duval County Circuit Court Case Number 16-1998-CF-5373, “regardless of the remedy sought or theory raised, unless he is represented in such proceeding by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.” Baker, 939 So.2d at 168. The Clerk of this Court, accordingly, is directed not to accept any additional pro se filings in this case filed by appellant.
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, BENTON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Percival Charles Ferris, Jr. v. State, 100 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (13 cases related to one conviction and at least 13 related to another); Richardson v. State, 70 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (13 cases); Butler v. State, 55 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (27 cases); Brown v. State, 10 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (12 cases). Here, it seems to me that the patently frivolous nature of Appellant’s claims weighs in favor of taking action now rather than later.…
-
Hinson v. State, 57 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…g the argument that the criminal statute under which he was evidently convicted was invalid because it failed to contain an enacting clause. This claim is clearly frivolous. See McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Brown v. State, 10 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). More significantly, however, this is but the latest of many attempts by Hinson to secure relief based on clearly meritless legal theories. Following a review of the court’s records of Hinson’s prior filings, we issued the follow…
-
Harris v. State, 242 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Desmond v. State, 576 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Budd v. State, 477 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hinson v. State, 57 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Brown v. State, 10 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Foss v. State, 834 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McMillan - 2 - v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). KHOUZAM, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Santos v. State, 380 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1980)
- Jimi L. Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Spencer v. State, 717 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Baker v. State, 939 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)