CARLO WOODSON, 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.
Carlo Woodson appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule 3.850, challenging his 1996 conviction for armed burglary and armed sexual battery. The appellate court affirms the trial court's denial and reissues an order to show cause why Woodson should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, given his pattern of repetitive filings on identical grounds over many years.
The court affirms the trial court's order denying the post-conviction relief motion and reissues an order to show cause directing Woodson to demonstrate good cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals relating to his conviction. The court finds no merit to Woodson's allegation regarding the charging document, which is based on a 'fallacious pyramid' of inferences.
[1] A defendant may be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, motions, or other proceedings if they repeatedly raise the same issues without demonstrating good cause.
[2] Repeatedly filing post-conviction motions on the same grounds, which have been previously denied, may subject a litigant to sanctions.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Woodson has repeatedly alleged, and alleges here for the tenth time, that the State's charging document was not based on a properly sworn statement by the material witness; and consequently, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction for Woodson's trial and conviction.”
Establishes the pattern of repetitive filings on the same jurisdictional challenge across at least ten separate filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodson was convicted in 1996 of one count of armed burglary and two counts of armed sexual battery, receiving a 45-year prison sentence. His convicti…
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 Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Carlo a/k/a Carlos Woodson appeals an order of the Miami-Dade Circuit Court denying Woodson’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the trial court’s order, and issue an order to show cause as described below.
Woodson is serving a 45-year prison sentence after a 1996 conviction of one count of armed burglary and two counts of armed sexual battery. This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in Woodson v. State, 739 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
In 2012, after Woodson had filed fifteen post-conviction appeals, petitions or motions with this Court, including nine on the same grounds, this Court issued an order to show cause why Woodson “should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings motions, or petitions relating to his convictions, judgments and sentences in Miami-Dade circuit court case number 96-5158.” Woodson v. State, 100 So.3d 222, 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).1,2
On December 5, 2012, Woodson filed in this Court a “Petitioner’s Response to Court Order to Show Cause.” This Court did not address Woodson’s response to, or discharge, the order to show cause. Woodson then proceeded to file three more appeals or petitions to this Court, for a total of eighteen filings, including the instant appeal.3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Woodson is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days from the date of this order, why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, motions, or other proceedings related to his criminal sentencing in circuit court case number 96-5158.4
If Woodson does not demonstrate good cause, any further and unauthorized pro se filings by Woodson will subject him to *254sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.
Affirmed. Order to show cause issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maybusher v. State, 739 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Carlo Woodson v. State, 100 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)