ROBERT J. AUMILLER, 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.
Robert Aumiller, an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed repeated frivolous appeals challenging his 1993 conviction and 2006 probation violation, most recently a rule 3.800(a) motion for jail time credit. The Fifth District Court of Appeal banned him from filing future pro se pleadings in this case due to abuse of process and ordered the clerk to reject any further filings unless submitted by a licensed attorney.
The court banned Aumiller from filing future pro se pleadings in this case due to his repeated abuse of the pro se filing privilege. The clerk of court was directed to reject any further pro se filings from Aumiller unless submitted by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar, and a certified copy of the opinion was directed to be forwarded to the Department of Corrections.
[1] A party who repeatedly files frivolous appeals attacking a judgment and sentence may be prohibited from making further pro se filings concerning that judgment and sentenc…
[2] A court may order a party to show cause why they should not be prohibited from future pro se filings when the party appears to be abusing the legal process.
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“Jail credit claims by their nature are often time-intensive and difficult, and the frivolous claim in this case was yet another abuse of process by Aumiller.”
The court explained why Aumiller's repeated frivolous filings constituted a particular abuse of the judicial system.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAumiller received a conviction in 1993 and a subsequent probation violation in 2006. Over several years, he repeatedly filed frivolous pro se pleading…
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 Frivolous Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
In the past several years, Robert Aumil-ler has repeatedly filed frivolous pro se pleadings attacking sentences he received in a 1993 conviction and subsequent violation of probation in 2006. Months after filing his most recent appeal regarding a rule 3.800(a) Motion for Additional Jail Time Credit, Aumiller filed a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,” saying that he now recognizes his claim is not supported by the law so “there is no need to waste the judicial labor of this court any further.”
Jail credit claims by their nature are often time-intensive and difficult, and the frivolous claim in this case was yet another abuse of process by Aumiller. Due to Aumiller’s abuse of his right to pro se access by repeatedly filing frivolous appeals, we hereby ban Aumiller from filing future pro se pleadings with this Court concerning this case. See Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (defendant prohibited from further pro se filings regarding same case when pleadings have become “frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers’ money”); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”).
The Clerk of this Court is therefore directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning Osceola County Circuit Court Case No. 93-CF-1989 from Appellant, and any further pleadings will be summarily rejected by the Clerk unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to Appellant and the appropriate institution for consideration of available disciplinary procedures. See §§ 944.279(1), 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). Rehearing will not be entertained.
Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Appellant and the Department of Corrections.
TORPY, LAWSON, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Armbruster v. State, 931 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)