JAMES EARL 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.
James Earl Brown appealed the denial of his seventh Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence in his 2000 sexual battery case. The court affirmed the denial and, finding Brown's repeated filings frivolous and abusive, barred him from further pro se filings and imposed sanctions.
The court affirmed the denial of Brown's seventh Rule 3.800(a) motion and imposed sanctions, prohibiting Brown from filing further pro se pleadings in the 2000 case unless represented by a Florida Bar member. The court found that Brown was abusing the judicial process and wasting court resources through frivolous and repetitious filings.
[1] A court may prohibit a party from filing further pro se pleadings when the party has abused the judicial process through repeated frivolous filings.
[2] A party who fails to respond to a show cause order concerning frivolous appeals may be deemed to have no valid reason for continuing such appeals.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“he has provided no valid reason for filing this frivolous appeal, that he is abusing the judicial process, and that he should be barred from further pro se filings”
Establishes the court's conclusion that Brown's filings are frivolous, abusive, and warrant sanctions prohibiting future 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 intelligenceBrown entered a negotiated plea to attempted sexual battery in 2000. He subsequently filed seven Rule 3.800(a) motions challenging his sentence. His s…
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 Litigant Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In his 2000 case, Appellant, James Earl Brown [“Brown”], entered into a negotiated plea to a single, lesser charge of attempted sexual battery. In this case, he appealed the denial of his seventh Rule 3.800(a) motion. This Court per curiam affirmed and issued a show cause order as required by State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), giving Brown an opportunity to explain why he should not be sanctioned for abusing the judicial process.
Having carefully considered Brown’s response, we conclude that he has provided no valid reason for filing this frivolous appeal, that he is abusing the judicial process, and that he should be barred from further pro se filings. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); see, e.g., Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (defendant’s “pro se filings have become frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers’ money”); Henderson v. State, 903 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (no matter how repetitious or frivolous a filing is, it requires some portion of the court’s limited resources; it is the court’s responsibility to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”); see also Bauer v. State, 31 So.3d 220, 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“It continues to concern us that [rule] 3.800 permits a prisoner to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence at any time, and there is no limit on the number of such motions which can be filed.... This has led to the proliferation of successive filings by prisoners and a substantial and costly increase in workload for both trial and appellate courts.”)
Therefore, the Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Brown concerning the 2000 judgment and sentence case. Any additional pleadings or motions in this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar. See Johnson v. State, 652 So.2d 980, 980 (Fla. 5th DCA *12571995) (prohibiting petitioner from filing further pro se pleadings after thirteen challenges to conviction and sentence). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See Simpkins v. State, 909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2010).
Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, and EVANDER, 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)
- In re McDONALD, 489 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1989)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Armbruster v. State, 931 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Henderson v. State, 903 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Bauer v. State, 31 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Gilberto and Sandra Gamez v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 31 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)