LATHADIUS K. SIMS, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Sims' post-conviction motion and imposed a ban on Sims from filing future pro se pleadings in this case, finding his thirteen filings to be repetitious and frivolous.
A defendant who has filed thirteen repetitious and frivolous pro se pleadings regarding the same conviction may be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in that case.
[1] A defendant may be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in a case when his pleadings have become repetitious, frivolous, and an abuse of process.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLathadius Sims was convicted in 2003 pursuant to a guilty plea. He filed his thirteenth post-conviction motion raising an issue already addressed and …
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
This is Lathadius Sims’ thirteenth pleading regarding his 2003 conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea. In this case, Sims again appeals the trial court’s denial of his latest post-conviction motion, raising an issue which, as the trial court informed him, had already been addressed and affirmed by this Court. The trial court further found that Sims “has filed repetitious and frivolous pleadings which diminish the Court’s ability to devote its limited resources to consideration of legitimate claims.” We agree and therefore ban Sims 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 *1026filings concerning Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 03-CF-3110 from Sims, 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 Sims 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.
SAWAYA, PALMER 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)