LARRY WYNN, 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 held that the appellant is barred from future pro se filings concerning the specific circuit court case due to abuse of the legal process through repeated, meritless challenges.
[1] A party who repeatedly challenges a judgment and sentence through successive and meritless filings may be barred from future pro se filings concerning that judgment and s…
[2] A court may order a party to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for abuse of the legal process through repeated filings.
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 intelligenceLarry Wynn appealed the denial of his postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence. This was his third such challenge, and he had filed at…
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 Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Larry Wynn appeals from the denial of a postconviction motion raising a claim of newly discovered evidence. We affirm the trial court’s order without comment.
The appellant has failed to obtain relief in at least eight cases he filed in this court to challenge this judgment and sentence. This is his third postconviction challenge based upon the same alleged newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, we ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings *528challenging this judgment and sentence. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999). He failed to file a response, and the request for judicial notice he filed instead does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.
Therefore, because the appellant’s repeated attacks on his judgment and sentence have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in the court concerning Duval County Circuit Court case number 1992-CF-4125. See Harmon v. State, 136 So.3d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (imposing sanctions in the appellant’s seventh postconviction appeal where the most recent filing involved a frivolous challenge to an opinion that had been approved by the Florida Supreme Court); Hall v. State, 94 So.3d 655, 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (imposing sanctions in the appellant’s seventh postconviction appeal where the appellant had twice raised the same untimely and meritless claim despite being advised of the barred and meritless nature of his claim in a previous postconviction order); Wimberly v. State, 50 So.3d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (imposing sanctions in connection with the appellant’s fourth merit-less postconviction motion where the most recent motion' raised successive and untimely claims without establishing any exception to the procedural bars). The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.
AFFIRMED and SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
LEWIS, THOMAS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Wendall Hall v. State, 94 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Sade Marie Dunbar v. State, 94 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Gurth v. State, 50 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Wimberly v. State, 50 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Harmon v. State, 136 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)