ENIEL PLANAS
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 pro se litigant who has filed at least fifteen successive petitions raising the same procedurally barred and meritless claims may be barred from further pro se filings to prevent abuse of judicial process.
[1] A party who repeatedly files meritless claims and abuses the judicial process may be prohibited from making further pro se filings.
[2] Courts may reject pro se filings relating to a specific case number unless reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney when a party has abused the judicial process.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A legitimate claim that may merit relief is more likely to be overlooked if buried within a forest of frivolous claims.”
Court cited Hedrick v. State in support of its decision to bar further pro se filings.
Eniel Planas filed a successive habeas corpus petition on March 15, 2023, raising a claim he had previously raised in at least five prior appeals or o…
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 Original Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 10, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-498 Lower Tribunal No. 06-21-M
________________
Eniel Planas,
Petitioner,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus Eniel Planas, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent. Before EMAS, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Pro se petitioner Eniel Planas filed a successive petition for habeas corpus with this court on March 15, 2023. Following our review, we denied the petition and issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in this court relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in circuit court case number 06-CF-21-M.
In doing so, we noted that, since the affirmance of petitioner’s judgment and sentence on direct appeal in 2009 (Planas v. State, 13 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)), petitioner has filed at least fifteen (15) pro se postconviction appeals or original proceedings in this Court, related to the convictions, judgments, and sentences in circuit court case number 06-CF-21-M. On each occasion, this court has denied or dismissed the petition, or has affirmed the trial court’s order.
We further note that in the instant proceeding, petitioner raises the same claim previously raised, in one form or another, in at least five (5) prior appeals or original proceedings, each of which this court previously found to be without merit. See, e.g., Planas v. State, 321 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Planas v. State, 253 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Planas v. Jones, 248 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Planas v. State, 212 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Having considered petitioner’s response to the order to show cause, we find that Eniel Planas has failed to show good cause why he should not be barred from further pro se filings. By engaging in the above-described conduct, Eniel Planas has abused the judicial process, continuing to seek relief by raising procedurally barred claims and urging meritless positions previously advanced and decided. Petitioner’s actions have caused this court to expend precious and finite judicial resources, which could otherwise be devoted to cases raising legitimate claims. See Hedrick v. State, 6 So. 3d 688, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting: “A legitimate claim that may merit relief is more likely to be overlooked if buried within a forest of frivolous claims.”) This court therefore directs the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to reject any filings submitted by or on behalf of Eniel Planas relating to circuit court case number 06-CF-21-M, unless such filing has been reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eniel Planas v. State, 321 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…instant proceeding, petitioner raises the same claim previously raised, in one form or another, in at least five (5) prior appeals or original proceedings, each of which this court previously found to be without merit. See, e.g., Planas v. State, 321 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Planas v. State, 253 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Planas v. Jones, 248 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Planas v. State, 212 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). ---PAGE 3--- Ha…
-
Jimenez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…le where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction (and, only by extension, the “legality” of the sentence). See Ramirez v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1823, 2022 WL 3903532 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 31, 2022); Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not…
-
Williams v. State, 284 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…(“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence”) (citing Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eniel Planas v. State, 321 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Eniel Planas v. State, 212 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Eniel Planas v. State, 253 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Eniel Planas v. Jones, 248 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)