WILLIAM HOUSTON KING
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.
A pro se litigant who repeatedly files frivolous postconviction motions attacking the same judgment and sentence may be prohibited from future pro se filings to conserve judicial resources.
[1] A pro se litigant may be prohibited from filing further motions in a particular case when the litigant has repeatedly filed frivolous filings attacking the same judgment…
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“Enough is enough.”
Court's citation to Isley v. State in imposing the pro se filing prohibition
William Houston King was convicted of violating the Florida RICO Act, conspiracy to violate the Florida RICO Act, and organized fraud, and was sentenc…
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 Organized Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
WILLIAM HOUSTON KING,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-2905
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 5, 2019
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Robert W. Hodges, Judge.
William Houston King, Lake City, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, William Houston King was adjudicated guilty of violating the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) Act, conspiracy to violate the Florida RICO Act, and organized fraud in Marion County Circuit Court Case Number 2009-CF-002251. King was sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment, followed by fifteen years of probation. King appealed his judgment and sentence, and this Court per curiam affirmed. King v. State, 177 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
2
King subsequently filed eight separate appeals attacking the denials of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motions for postconviction relief. King voluntarily dismissed two of his postconviction appeals, and this Court per curiam affirmed the remaining appeals. See King v. State, 177 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); King v. State, 222 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); King v. State, 229 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); King v. State, 233 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); King v. State, 252 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); King v. State, No. 5D18-2905, 2019 WL 993355 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 26, 2019). Due to King’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated frivolous filings attacking his judgment and sentence rendered in the above referenced case, this Court issued an order directing King 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). Having carefully considered King’s response and finding that it fails to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings. Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, King is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for
3
consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Future pro se filings PROHIBITED.
COHEN, BERGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Kersey v. State, 222 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Hackebeil v. LNV Corp., 229 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Parker v. State, 233 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)