CARLTON PAUL BACON
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 circuit court properly denies a pro se litigant's motion when the litigant has been ordered to submit all pleadings through a licensed attorney and submits an unsigned motion in violation of that order.
[1] A court order requiring a pro se litigant to submit all pleadings through a licensed attorney may be enforced by summary denial of pleadings submitted without such signat…
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 intelligenceIn 2014, the circuit court entered an order prohibiting the clerk from accepting any pleading from Carlton Paul Bacon unless signed by a licensed Flor…
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.
PER CURIAM.
On February 7, 2014, the circuit court entered an order directing the clerk not to accept any pleading from Carlton Paul Bacon absent the signature of an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. This court per curiam affirmed Bacon’s appeal of the February 7, 2014 order. Bacon v. State, 147 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). On May 4, 2022, Bacon filed a “motion to define and/or clarify sentence” in the circuit court. The order on appeal summarily denies Bacon’s motion because the motion contains no signature of a licensed attorney. Accordingly, we affirm the order summarily denying the relief requested.
Affirmed.
2