DYTRELL JONES, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal prohibited Dytrell Jones, a pro se litigant, from filing further appeals, motions, and pleadings relating to five specified criminal cases after finding he had engaged in successive, duplicative, and frivolous filings that ignored prior adverse rulings. The court imposed sanctions under State v. Spencer and Concepcion v. State, requiring any future filings to be reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney.
Good cause has not been shown, and Jones is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in the five specified cases without review and signature by a licensed Florida Bar attorney in good standing. Any unauthorized pro se filings may subject Jones to sanctions, including written findings for consideration of disciplinary action and forfeiture of gain time.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is successive and may be denied when the issues raised have been previously reviewed and disposed of by the court.
[2] A court may issue an order to show cause why a party should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, motions, or other pleadings related to a crim…
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 intelligence“Jones filed a motion in the lower tribunal cases that realleged the post-conviction sentencing issues denied by the lower tribunal previously and affirmed by this Court only two months before he commenced the appeal in the present case.”
Establishes the pattern of successive, duplicative filings that formed the basis for prohibiting further pro se filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones filed successive pro se appeals and motions in multiple criminal cases (F10-1003, F10-21841A, F11-8636B, F11-8637C, and F11-9351A) raising post-…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On July 26, 2017, the Court affirmed the denial of Dytrell Jones’ motion to correct illegal sentence. On the same date, the Court ordered Jones to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, motions, or other pleadings in this Court relating to lower tribunal cases F10-1003, F10-21841A, F11-8636B, F11-8637C, and F11-9351A.
Upon consideration of Jones’ response to the order to show cause and the successive, duplicative, pro se appeals brought by Jones, we conclude that good cause has not been shown. As an example, Jones filed a motion in the lower tribunal cases that realleged the post-conviction sentencing issues denied by the lower tribunal previously and affirmed by this Court only two months before he commenced the appeal in the present case. Jones v. State, 2017 WL 1277922 (per curiam affirmed) (Table) (slip op. Apr. 5, 2017). The motion and appeal in the present case were filed without consideration of the prior rulings. Jones has engaged in the filing of other meritless, frivolous, and successive claims in addition to these cases, ignoring prior adverse rulings.
In accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999), and Concepcion v. State, 944 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), Jones is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in lower tribunal eases F10-1003, F10-21841A, F11-8636B, F11-8637C, and F11-9351A. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to these circuit court case numbers unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See Whipple v. State, 112 So.3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Additionally, any such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Jones may subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)