ALFONSO JENKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 held that the petitioner has shown no good cause to avoid prohibition of further pro se filings due to his history of successive and meritless motions.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant from filing successive motions if the litigant is first given notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] A litigant who has repeatedly filed unsuccessful post-conviction motions may be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions.
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 intelligenceAlfonso Jenkins, convicted of sexual battery, robbery, and burglary, has filed numerous post-conviction motions that have been repeatedly denied and a…
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 Prohibition Of Future Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Alfonso Jenkins petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. This Court ordered Jenkins to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing successive pro se motions in this Court. See Carter v. State, 1 So.3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond).
After considering Jenkins’ response to this Court’s show cause order, we conclude that good cause has not been shown. Jenkins pled guilty to the charges of sexual battery, robbery, and burglary with an assault with a dangerous weapon for which he was convicted. He received a sentence of life in prison. Since his conviction, Jenkins has filed numerous and successive motions for post-conviction relief in the trial court, challenging his conviction and sentence. The trial court denied all the motions, and this Court has either affirmed or dismissed the appeals on at least eleven occasions: Jenkins v. State, 3D90-650; Jenkins v. State, 3D90-1633; Jenkins v. State, 3D91-1610; Jenkins v. State, *2803D94-634; Jenkins v. State, 3D94-2149; Jenkins v. State, 656 So.2d 160 (1995) 3D95-1414; Jenkins v. Singletary, 683 So.2d 497 (1996) 3D96-2390; Jenkins v. Singletary, 683 So.2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Jenkins v. State, 718 So.2d 190 (1998) 3D98-75; Jenkins v. State, 48 So.3d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Jenkins v. State, 51 So.3d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Accordingly, Jenkins is now prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions both here and in the trial court relating to his convictions and sentences in lower court case numbers 81-21695, 81-21693, 81-18468, and 81-21694. See Prieto v. State, 990 So.2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to lower court case numbers 81-21695, 81-21693, 81-18468, and 81-21694 unless an attorney, who is a duly licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing, has reviewed and signed them.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Prieto v. State, 990 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Carter v. State, 1 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)