ANTHONY GARLAND, 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.
Sanctions are imposed against the appellant for filing frivolous and successive postconviction motions, and the Clerk is directed to restrict future filings.
[1] A motion to set aside an order denying a prior motion to vacate a sentence cannot be used to circumvent the limitations on successive motions.
[2] A court may impose sanctions for frivolous filings after issuing an order to show cause and considering the party's response.
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 intelligenceAppellant filed an untimely and successive motion seeking to 'rehearing' a postconviction motion denied in 2008, which was again denied. This was afte…
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 Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
We previously affirmed the denial of the frivolous and untimely motion appealed in this case and issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). We have considered appellant’s May 19, 2014, response to this Court’s order to show cause and determine that appellant has failed to show any reason why sanctions should not be imposed.
In the January 2014 motion on appeal, appellant sought “rehearing” of a postconviction motion that was denied in 2008. He did not appeal from that denial but instead filed an untimely and successive motion in 2012 contending that the 2008 denial was procured by fraud. That frivolous motion was denied and affirmed on appeal in case number 4D13-2188 where this Court cautioned appellant for the second time that further frivolous filing would result in sanctions. Appellant was also cautioned about sanctions for frivolous filing in case number 4D10-3902. Undeterred, appellant has filed another untimely and successive postconviction challenge arguing the repetitive claim that the denial of his motion in 2008 was procured by fraud. The motion was clearly abusive and frivolous. “[M]otions to set aside orders denying prior motions to vacate a sentence under Rule 3.850 cannot be used to circumvent the limitations on successive motions set forth in the rule.” Booker v. State, 503 So.2d 888, 889 (Fla.1987). The motion at issue is nothing more than an attempt to relitigate issues denied long ago.
*256Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to no longer accept any paper filed by appellant unless the document has been reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.
The Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures including forfeiture of all gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). No motion for rehearing will be entertained.
Affirmed.
GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Booker v. State, 503 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1987)