KENNETH BACON, 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 affirmed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence and barred the appellant from future pro se filings in this court regarding his conviction due to abuse of process through repeated frivolous post-conviction appeals.
A defendant who has filed multiple frivolous post-conviction appeals attacking the same conviction and sentence may be barred from future pro se filings in the appellate court.
[1] A defendant may be barred from filing future pro se motions in an appellate court when he has filed multiple frivolous post-conviction appeals attacking the same convicti…
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 intelligenceKenneth Bacon filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in connection with his 1999 convi…
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 Sanctions For Abuse Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
We previously affirmed the summary denial of the Appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Appellant has made numerous filings in this Court relating to his convictions in case 1999-12350-CFA, including 4 prior post-conviction appeals. He has failed to obtain relief in any of the prior post-conviction appeals. Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated, frivolous pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence, this Court issued an order directing him to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Appellant’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.
Therefore, because 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 this Court concerning Duval County Court Case Number 1999-12350-CFA. 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.
WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.