PETER H. MARKLAND, PETITIONER,
v.
THE 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.
The court prohibited a pro se criminal defendant from filing further appeals and petitions related to his sentencing without attorney representation, after he failed to show good cause following an order to show cause.
A court may prohibit a pro se criminal defendant from filing further appeals and petitions without attorney representation after providing an order to show cause and opportunity to respond.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se criminal defendant's right to file further appeals and petitions without attorney representation after providing an order to show cause and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarkland filed a pro se Petition for Habeas Corpus challenging his criminal sentencing in circuit court case number F90-34718, which the court denied …
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 Litigant Access To Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On June 22, 2016, this Court issued an opinion denying Peter H. Markland’s (“Markland”) Petition for Habeas Corpus. In addition, our opinion contained an order to show cause why Markland should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his criminal sentencing in circuit court case number F90-34718. Markland filed his response on July 8, 2016, but failed therein to show good cause to justify further pro se filings of appeals, petitions, motions, and other pleadings with this Court.
We must balance Markland’s pro se right of access to courts with the Court’s need to devote its finite resources to legitimate appeals, recognizing the seriousness of the sanction when the litigant is a criminal defendant. State v. Spencer, 761 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999). After an order to show cause and an opportunity to respond, a court may prevent such further filings. Id.
It is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the Court of the Third District Court of Appeal shall refuse further pro se filings related to case number F90-34718; provided, however, that filings related to case number F90-34718 may be accepted by the Clerk if such filings have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.
Any further and unauthorized pro se filings by Markland will subject him to sanctions, 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.
Order issued.