CARLOS JAVIER MONTESINOS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 held that the appellant has abused the judicial process by filing numerous frivolous pro se appeals and therefore prohibits him from filing any further pro se documents related to his conviction and sentence.
[1] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further pleadings related to a conviction and sentence after repeated frivolous filings.
[2] While pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a litigant does not have a constitutional right to file frivolous lawsuits.
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 intelligenceThe appellant, Carlos Javier Montesinos, has a history of filing numerous pro se postconviction relief motions and appeals stemming from a 2006 convic…
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 Pro Se Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
On December 17, 2013, Carlos Javier Montesinos filed a Notice of Appeal from an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. On May 14, 2014, we affirmed the trial court’s order and ordered Montesinos to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings with this court concerning his May 2006 conviction and sentence arising from lower tribunal case number 03-28869B. See Montesinos v. State, - So.3d-, 2014 WL 1921617, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D999 (Fla. 3d DCA May 14, 2014). Having carefully reviewed Mon-tesinos’ response to this court’s show cause order, and having reviewed the record, we now prohibit Montesinos from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to this conviction and sentence.
I. Facts
In May 2006, a judgment was entered against Montesinos for attempted felony murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, and burglary with an assault or battery. Montesinos was adjudicated a prison release reoffender and was sentenced to a term of natural life. This court affirmed the convictions and sentence on direct appeal. Montesinos v. State, 972 So.2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table).
Sinee 2006, Montesinos has filed numerous petitions or motions for postconviction relief stemming from lower tribunal case number 03-28869B.1 In this latest appeal, Montensinos contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct illegal sentence and subsequent motion for rehearing. In response to our show cause order, Montesinos argues it “would be fundamentally unfair to procedurally bar a defendant because of his inability to articulate his unlawful treatment.”
II. Analysis
We recognize pro se pleadings should be construed liberally. See Tillman v. State, 287 So.2d 693, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). And, while we agree Montesi-nos is entitled to a “genuine and adequate opportunity” to exercise his constitutional right of access to the courts, Woodson v. State, 100 So.3d 222, 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), we disagree with Montesinos that there remain disputed facts that must be determined via evidentiary hearing. Rather, after careful review of the exhaustive filings by Montesinos and his response to our show cause order, we conclude good cause has not been shown.
“[Ijncarcerated persons should and do have a full panoply of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarcerations.” Williams v. State, 121 So.3d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting Edwards v. State, 96 So.3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Prisoners *1057do not, however, enjoy a constitutional right to file frivolous lawsuits. Williams, 121 So.3d at 1115; Hepburn v. State, 934 So.2d 515, 517-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Montesinos has reached the point where “enough is enough.” Edwards v. State, 96 So.3d at 1155 (citations omitted).
III. Conclusion
We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept for filing in this court any further appeals, pleadings, motions, petitions, or other papers related to Montesinos’ convictions and sentences in lower tribunal case number 03-28869B, unless they are filed by a Florida Bar member in good standing.
Finally, we direct the Clerk to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections for consideration by that institution of disciplinary measures against Montesinos, pursuant to sections 944.279(1) and 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), in the event Montesinos attempts to file, pro se, any such appeal, pleading, motion, petition, or other paper in violation of this order. See Pettway v. McNeil 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arleen Hanna-Mack v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 218 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…and conversion of personal property, assumed to be true at this stage, are a legally sufficient basis for relief unless and until the Bank proves otherwise. Ms. Hanna-Mack is entitled to have her pleadings construed liberally. Montesinos v. State, 143 So. 3d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). If a pro se motion is improperly titled, the court should focus on the substance of the motion, based on its content. Suarez v. Orta, 176 So. 3d 327, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Florida courts emphasize substance over form. Id.…
-
Kamal Williams v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…rfeited where it is determined, after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, that the party has abused the judicial process by the continued filing of successive or meritless collateral claims in a criminal proceeding."); Montesinos v. State, 143 So. 3d 1055, 1056–57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Prisoners do not, however, enjoy a constitutional right to file frivolous lawsuits.").…
Authorities Cited
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Hepburn v. State, 934 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Tillman v. State, 287 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Kapua, 972 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Yuri Bery v. Ghassan Fahel, D.O., 96 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Edwards v. State, 96 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Montesinos v. State, 77 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Carlo Woodson v. State, 100 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Montesinos v. State, 53 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)