GEORGE GOULD, 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.
George Gould appealed the denial of his sixth Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his conviction for aggravated battery and sentence as a habitual offender. The court affirmed the denial and barred Gould from filing further pro se pleadings in this case, finding he was abusing the judicial process.
Gould is barred from filing any further pro se pleadings with the court concerning his case. The court concluded that Gould is abusing the judicial process and prohibited him from filing pro se challenges to his conviction and sentence in the trial court as well.
[1] A party who abuses the judicial process by filing numerous unpersuasive challenges to convictions and sentences may be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings.
[2] A court may direct its clerk to refuse to accept further pro se filings from a party found to be abusing 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“We conclude that Gould is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.”
The court's determination that Gould's repeated motions constitute abuse of judicial process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGould was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender in 2003. Since his judgment became final…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the denial of Appellant George Gould’s sixth motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) without comment, and write only to address whether Gould should be barred from further pro se filings.
Gould was tried and convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender. Gould v. State, 860 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Since his judgment and sentence became final, Gould has appealed the denial of two postconviction motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and six motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In Gould’s most recent 3.800(a) motion, he continued to attack his conviction, causing this Court to order Gould to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se challenges to his conviction and sentence in lower court case number 02-02026-CFA. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).
After considering Gould’s response, we find it unpersuasive. We conclude that Gould is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings. Therefore, we now prohibit Gould from filing with this Court any more pro se pleadings concerning Seminole County, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court case number 02-02026-CFA. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Gould, and any further pleadings will be summarily rejected by the Clerk unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Johnson v. State, 652 So.2d 980, 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (prohibiting petitioner from filing further pro se pleadings with this Court after thirteen challenges to conviction and sentence); Is-ley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2011); Simpkins v. State, 909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Rehearing will not be entertained.
AFFIRMED; Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; Certified opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
GRIFFIN, EVANDER, and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Benninghoff, 188 So. 3d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…s reviewing the dismissal- of charges, pursuant to section 916.145, Florida Statutes, and rule 3.213 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure have uniformly and consistently enforced the five-year requirement before dismissal. See Bryant v. State, 99 So. 3d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss because five years had not elapsed); Tiburcio v. State, 95 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing dismissal of charges because five years had not elapsed); Mosher v. State, 876 So.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Gould v. State, 860 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)