ROBERT LEE DANIELS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Robert Lee Daniels, convicted of armed robbery in 1997 and designated a habitual felony offender, appealed the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court affirmed the denial and prohibited Daniels from filing further pro se pleadings in the court regarding this case, finding his repeated filings constituted an abuse of process.
The court affirmed the denial of Daniels's motion and held that Daniels is barred from filing further pro se pleadings with the court regarding this case on the ground that his pleadings constitute an abuse of process. The court prohibited all future pro se filings by Daniels concerning the underlying case and directed the clerk not to accept such filings unless filed by a member of the Florida Bar.
[1] A party is barred from repeatedly filing motions on matters already adjudicated adversely against them.
[2] Repeated filing of frivolous appeals constitutes an abuse of process and may result in a prohibition of future pro se filings.
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“Daniels's belief that he is right, and that the trial court and this Court are wrong, does not entitle him to continue to file motions on matters already adjudicated adversely against him.”
Establishes that repeated filing on already-decided issues is not permitted and supports the filing prohibition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniels was convicted of armed robbery in 1997 and designated a habitual felony offender. He filed a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal senten…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Lee Daniels, who was convicted of a 1997 armed robbery, appeals the denial of his latest rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Once again, he attacks his designation as a habitual felony offender. After receiving Daniels’s response to this Court’s show cause order, we affirm. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999). Daniels’s belief that he is right, and that the trial court and this Court are wrong, does not entitle him to continue to file motions on matters already adjudicated adversely against him.
We hold that Daniels is barred from further pro se filings in this Court on the basis that his pleadings have become an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”); see also Carter v. State, 931 So. 2d 1045, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Appellant’s repeated filing of frivolous appeals is diminishing this court’s ability to consider legitimate claims.”); Britt v. State, 931 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding defendant’s pro se filings were frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers’ money); Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing that frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants).
Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Daniels from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court case number 97-3833-CFB. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Daniels. Any pleadings regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary action. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); see, e.g., Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED; Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
ORFINGER, TORPY, and GRIFFIN, 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)
- Armbruster v. State, 931 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Carter v. State, 931 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)