ROBERT WASHINGTON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 4th DCA | 2018-02-07
No. 17-3514
238 So. 3d 282 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2018)

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.


Holding

A trial court may properly treat a habeas petition as a successive and untimely rule 3.850 motion and sanction a pro se litigant by prohibiting future pro se filings absent bar counsel signature.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court may sanction a pro se litigant by prohibiting future pro se pleadings and requiring representation by Florida Bar counsel under Florida Rules of Criminal Pr…

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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Robert Washington filed a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief in consolidated consolidated cases arising from convictions in Broward County. …

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.

Opinion of the Court

Consolidated appeals of orders denying rule 3.850 motions from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard Bober, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 97-3884CF10A and 97-4713CFA.

Robert Washington, Indiantown, pro se. No appearance required for appellee. PER CURIAM.

Robert Washington appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion, as well as the trial court’s order prohibiting him from filing future pro se pleadings unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar. We sua sponte consolidate the cases for review and affirm both orders. The trial court properly treated Washington’s habeas petition as a successive and untimely rule 3.850 motion. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it issued the sanction order barring further pro se filings from Washington. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n).

Affirmed. GERBER, C.J., MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw