LEROY WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
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.
Leroy Williams, a death-row inmate convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery in 1994, sought relief through numerous postconviction motions and a habeas corpus petition. The court imposed a restriction prohibiting Williams from filing further pro se appeals, motions, or petitions related to his convictions unless reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney, invoking the 'enough is enough' rule for frivolous filings.
The court held that Williams is precluded from filing any additional pro se appeals, motions, pleadings, or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences unless the filings are reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. The court applied the 'enough is enough' rule due to Williams' repeated abuse of the judicial system through frequent, frivolous filings.
[1] A court may impose sanctions against a party for abuse of its limited resources through the filing of numerous meritless pro se petitions.
[2] A court may retain jurisdiction to pursue sanctions against a party for abuse of its resources, even after dismissing the party's petition.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Williams has repeatedly abused the judicial system with his frequent, frivolous filings, we conclude that he qualifies for this court's 'enough is enough' rule.”
Establishes the court's rationale for imposing the pro se filing restriction based on pattern of abuse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was indicted in 1994 for first-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. He was convicted of both charges and sentenced to life in pris…
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 Abuse Of Judicial System cases and more on FLexlaw
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Leroy Williams was indicted in 1994 for first-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. He was convicted of both charges and sentenced to life in prison on the murder conviction and a concurrent 120 months' in prison for the armed robbery. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences without opinion. Williams v. State, 718 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
Subsequent to his unsuccessful direct appeal, Williams filed numerous postcon-viction motions which were denied, and each of those denials was affirmed by this court on appeal.1 On January 6, 2016, we *1286denied Williams’ latest filing, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, by unpublished order and contemporaneously issued an order directing Williams to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any appeal, petition, pleading, or motion pertaining to the convictions and sentences rendered in Orange County Circuit Court Case No. CR94-11724-C, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999).
Williams filed a response, which this court has carefully reviewed. The bulk of Williams’ response is a rehashing of his recent, meritless habeas corpus petition. We find no merit to the response, and, because Williams has repeatedly abused the judicial system with his frequent, frivolous filings, we conclude that he qualifies for this court’s “enough is enough” rule. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Accordingly, we hold that Williams is precluded from filing any additional appeals, motions, pleadings, or petitions pertaining to .his convictions and sentences in Case No. CR94-11724-C, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Orange County, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept from Williams, as a petitioner or appellant, any further pro se pleadings or filings relating to that case. See Medberry v. State, 824 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS ARE PROHIBITED.
BERGER, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Medberry v. State, 824 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Williams v. State, 937 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)