DAVID CHARLES SUSSMAN
v.
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.
The trial court properly dismissed appellant's mandamus petition seeking the clerk's acceptance of post-judgment motions, and the appellate court affirmed without further discussion.
[1] A court may sanction a pro se litigant by barring future pro se filings when the litigant's filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous.
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 intelligenceAppellant David Charles Sussman filed a mandamus petition in the appellate court seeking the clerk's acceptance of various pro se post-judgment motion…
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 Post-Judgment Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2025-0203 LT Case No. 2024-12898-CIDL _____________________________
DAVID CHARLES SUSSMAN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Dennis P. Craig, Judge.
David Charles Sussman, Arcadia, pro se.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
October 31, 2025
PER CURIAM.
Appellant petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus related to his Jimmy Ryce case. This Court transferred the petition to the trial court. The petition sought the clerk’s acceptance of various pro se, post-judgment motions, and following a hearing, the trial court denied all the motions except one, which it found to be moot. The following day, it entered the order—which is the
2 subject of this appeal—dismissing the petition. We affirm this order without further discussion.
This Court has previously reviewed and ruled upon multiple meritless and duplicative filings of Appellant stemming from related cases. Because it appears that Appellant’s filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous, Appellant is cautioned that any further pro se filings in this Court asserting claims stemming from Volusia County Circuit Court Case Nos. 2022- 11151-CIDL and 2024-12898-CIDL may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filings in this Court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999); Lavender v. State, 6 So. 3d 713, 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
AFFIRMED; APPELLANT CAUTIONED.
JAY, C.J., and MAKAR and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________