LEROY EPPS, 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 denial of Epps's successive postconviction motion and prohibited him from filing further pro se pleadings in these cases to conserve judicial resources.
A trial court properly denies a successive postconviction motion raising a claim previously ruled an abuse of process, and an appellate court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further pleadings in specific cases to prevent continued abuse of the judicial system.
[1] A successive postconviction claim previously determined to be an abuse of process may be summarily denied, and an appellate court may prohibit a pro se litigant from fili…
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.”
Citing Isley v. State for the proposition that successive claims constitute an abuse of process.
Leroy Epps appealed the denial of his latest postconviction motion raising a successive claim in his nineteen and twenty-one year-old cases (Marion Co…
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 Pro Se Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
For his nineteen and twenty-one year-old cases, Leroy Epps appeals the denial of his latest postconviction motion, which raises a successive claim. After reviewing Epps’s response to this Court’s show cause order, we see no valid reason for allowing him to continue filing pro se pleadings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999). The trial court was correct in 2007 when it ruled that Epps’s same successive claim was already an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”); see also O’Brien v. State, 689 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Legislature’s intent is that terms and conditions of collateral review and procedural bars to collateral review be strictly enforced).
Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources and because we expect Epps’s appeals will continue, we prohibit Leroy Epps from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings or papers concerning Marion County Fifth Judicial Circuit Court Case Nos. 90-CF-972 and 88-CF-577. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings or pleadings concerning these cases from Epps. Any further pleadings or papers regarding these cases will be summarily rejected by the Clerk of this Court, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.
APPEAL AFFIRMED; Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
ORFINGER, TORPY, and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)