WILLIAM L. WHIPPLE, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied William Whipple's petition for habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and imposed a restriction on his future pro se filings, requiring any further pleadings to be reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney.
The court held that Whipple is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to the conviction and sentence in Case No. 93-40908. Any future papers must be reviewed and signed by a duly licensed Florida Bar member in good standing.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant from filing further pleadings if the litigant is given notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] A court may order that future pro se filings be reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney after repeated denials of frivolous pro se filings.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond”
Establishes the legal standard for imposing pro se filing restrictions under State v. Spencer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhipple filed a petition for common law writ of habeas corpus relating to a conviction and sentence imposed in lower tribunal Case No. 93-40908. The c…
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 Petition For Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
On Order to Show Cause
On January 16, 2013, we issued an order treating Whipple’s petition for common law writ of habeas corpus as a Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d) petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and denied the petition. At the same time, we ordered Whipple to show cause why he should not be prevented from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, or motions in this court regarding the conviction and sentence imposed in lower tribunal Case No. 93-40908. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999) (holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond). After carefully considering Whipple’s response to this court’s order, we conclude good cause has not been shown.
Accordingly, Whipple now is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions in this court relating to the conviction and sentence in Case No. 93-40908. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to lower court Case No. 93^10908, unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed *541member of the Florida Bar in good standing. See Johnson v. State, 915 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (ordering, after repeated denials of frivolous pro se filings, that any future papers filed be reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice law). We also caution Whipple that a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal in any court is subject to having his gain-time forfeited. See Minor v. State, 963 So.2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to this circuit court case number unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Additionally, any such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Jimenez may subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the…
-
Solomon Roberts v. State, 224 So. 3d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to this circuit court.case.number unless they have been reviewed-and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). [*291] Additionally, any such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Roberts may subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded…
-
La-Casse v. Inch (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…f this Court to refuse to accept any such papers relating to the specified circuit court case number unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Minor v. State, 963 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)