DERRICK GRANTLEY
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A defendant who engages in a pattern of repeated, successive pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence may be barred from further pro se filings when such filings constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
[1] A court may bar a defendant from filing further pro se pleadings when the defendant has engaged in a pattern of repeated, successive, abusive, repetitive, malicious, or f…
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“After repeated denials of multiple, successive filings, there comes a point where 'enough is enough.'”
The court cited Johnson v. State to support the principle that courts may bar defendants from further pro se filings after excessive repetitive filings.
Derrick Grantley filed multiple successive pro se motions and appeals challenging his conviction and sentence in cases numbered F98-3144B and F98-5013…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 30, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0910 Lower Tribunal Nos. F98-3144B & F98-5013 ________________
Derrick Grantley, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge.
Derrick Grantley, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Yolande M. Samerson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“After repeated denials of multiple, successive filings, there comes a point where ‘enough is enough.’ Based upon careful review of defendant’s filings in this court, we conclude that defendant has reached that point.”) (quoting Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410–11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)) (citation omitted); Horvatt v. State, 325 So. 3d 91, 92–93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (barring the defendant from further pro se filings after finding “apparent abuse of the legal process by . . . abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his sentence”); Wimberly v. State, 50 So. 3d 785, 786–88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (finding an “abuse of the post-conviction process” and “prohibiting further pro se filings” following “a campaign of filing motions for post-conviction relief” and one belated appeal even though not all claims were “identical”); Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“We do not take the action of barring a defendant from further pro se pleadings lightly. However, [e]nough is enough. Finding no merit in [the defendant]’s numerous filings, we must hold that his successive challenges to his judgments and sentence constitute an abuse of the judicial system.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Gurth v. State, 50 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)