CHARLES BERNARD ROBINSON, JR., 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.
Robinson, a pro se litigant who entered a plea agreement in 2002, filed his sixth post-conviction motion after his direct appeal was dismissed. The trial court warned him against filing additional frivolous motions and threatened sanctions. Robinson appealed, raising eight spurious claims, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, barred Robinson from further pro se filings in the case, and referred the matter to the Department of Corrections for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
Robinson is barred from filing any further pro se pleadings concerning his case number 05-2002-CF-60567 in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in Brevard County, as he is abusing the judicial process through continued frivolous filings.
[1] A party who repeatedly files frivolous post-conviction motions abuses the judicial process.
[2] Courts may prohibit a party from filing further pro se pleadings when the party has abused the judicial process.
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“Every motion has been denied as meritless. The Defendant is advised that if he files one more motion without merit, the Court will not only direct the Clerk of Court to refuse any further pro se filings from the Defendant, it will direct the Department of Corrections to consider imposing sanctions under section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2010) for abusing the process of the Court.”
The trial court's warning to Robinson about the consequences of continued frivolous filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson entered into a specific, written, signed plea agreement in his 2002 cases and was sentenced as agreed. After his direct appeal was dismissed,…
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 Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
In his 2002 cases, defendant Charles Bernard Robinson, Jr., entered into a specific, written, signed plea agreement. He was sentenced as agreed. After his direct appeal was dismissed, he pursued a course of numerous post-conviction motions without success. Upon review of his latest motion, the trial court ruled:
As noted at the beginning of this Order, the Defendant’s current Motion is the sixth he has filed since entering his plea agreement in 2004, each one seemingly lengthier and more convoluted than the last. Every motion has been denied as meritless. The Defendant is advised that if he files one more motion without merit, the Court will not only direct the Clerk of Court to refuse any further pro se filings from the Defendant, it will direct the Department of Corrections to consider imposing sanctions under section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2010) for abusing the process of the Court.
Robinson appealed. After review of his appeal which raised eight spurious claims, this court entered a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999). Robinson failed to respond, and, we conclude that he has no valid reason for continuing to file frivolous appeals like this one. We hold that he is abusing the judicial process, and that he should be barred from further pro se filings. We therefore prohibit Robinson from filing with this Court any more pro se pleadings concerning case number 05-2002-CF-60567 in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. See Hastings v. State, 79 So.3d 739 (Fla.2011), and Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221, 228 (Fla.2009) (recommending sanctions for both defendants and stating that the courts need to devote their finite resources to consideration of legitimate claims); 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”); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”).
The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to Robinson and the appropriate institution for consideration of available disciplinary procedures. Rehearing will not be entertained.
AFFIRMED; Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Robinson and the Department of Corrections.
ORFINGER, C.J., MONACO and PALMER, 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)
- Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
- Armbruster v. State, 931 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Hastings v. State, 79 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 2011)