DEXTER HOWARD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2010-12-23
No. 5D10-3095
GRIFFIN, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
49 So. 3d 1284 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2010)

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.

Synopsis

Dexter Howard filed his third petition for habeas corpus and fifth postconviction proceeding challenging his 2003 conviction. The court dismissed his petition, prohibited him from filing further pro se pleadings in this Court regarding his conviction, and directed that a certified copy be forwarded to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary consideration.


Holding

The court held that Howard should be barred from filing any further pro se pleadings in this Court concerning his conviction. Howard's response to the court's show cause order was unpersuasive, and the court imposed a sanction prohibiting all future pro se filings unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar.


Headnotes

[1] A court may prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se pleadings concerning a specific conviction when the litigant has repeatedly filed unpersuasive postconviction c…

[2] A court may direct the Clerk of Court to reject any further pro se filings from a litigant concerning a specific case, unless signed by a member in good standing of The F…

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

Key Quotes

“rejecting future pleadings, motions, or other filings relating to convictions and sentences is appropriate sanction "in order to preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the interests of justice"”

Establishes the court's justification for imposing the sanction of prohibiting further pro se filings

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Howard was convicted in 2003 in Orange County Circuit Court. He filed multiple postconviction proceedings and petitions for habeas corpus challenging …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PER CURIAM.

This is Dexter Howard’s third petition for habeas corpus for a belated appeal of a July 2009 order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion, and his fifth postconviction proceeding in this Court, challenging his 2003 conviction.

We previously issued an order dismissing Howard’s petition for belated appeal and issued an order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), directing him to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se challenges to his convictions. Having considered his response and finding it to be unpersuasive, we now prohibit Howard from filing with this Court any more pro se pleadings concerning Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2003-CF-12076. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20, 23 (Fla.2008) (holding that rejecting future pleadings, motions, or other filings relating to convictions and sentences is appropriate sanction “in order to preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the interests of justice”).

The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Howard concerning this case. Any more pleadings or papers regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless signed 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 of this Court is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate Department of Corrections institution or facility pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2010), for consideration of disciplinary procedures.

DISMISSED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED; CERTIFIED COPY FORWARDED TO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw