ROY LYNN FOREHAND, 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.
Florida appellate court barred a pro se litigant from filing further challenges to his judgment and sentence after he filed nine cases and five postconviction motions attacking the same conviction, holding that his repeated filings constituted an abuse of the legal process.
A pro se litigant may be barred from future filings challenging a judgment and sentence when his repeated attacks on the same conviction constitute an abuse of the legal process.
[1] A pro se litigant may be sanctioned by prohibition from future filings when repeated attacks on the same judgment and sentence constitute an abuse of the legal process.
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 intelligenceRoy Lynn Forehand filed at least nine cases in the appellate court to challenge his judgment and sentence, including five postconviction motions chall…
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 Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
We previously affirmed the summary denial of the appellant’s postconviction motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), but retained jurisdiction for consideration of the imposition of sanctions.
*43The appellant has failed to obtain relief in at least nine cases he filed in this court to challenge this judgment and sentence. This is his fifth postconviction motion challenging the scoring of his prior conviction for murder. Accordingly, we ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings challenging this judgment and sentence. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). The appellant’s response to the show cause order 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 Bay County Circuit Court case number 1986-CF-1247. 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.
B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.