ROBERT L. FELDER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Felder, who has filed ten pro se collateral attacks in an 18-year-old capital sexual battery case, petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal denied his petition and prohibited him from filing further pro se pleadings in this court, finding his repeated filings constitute an abuse of process contrary to the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996.
The court denied Felder's petition and prohibited him from filing any further pro se pleadings concerning the two underlying criminal cases. Future pro se filings will be summarily rejected by the Clerk unless filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar. The certified opinion was forwarded to the Department of Corrections for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
[1] A party may be barred from further pro se filings when their pleadings constitute an abuse of process, contrary to legislative intent to strictly enforce procedural bars…
[2] Courts may prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se pleadings in specific cases to conserve judicial resources when such filings are repetitive and frivolous.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We hold that Felder is barred from further pro se filings in this court on the basis that his pleadings have become an abuse of process which is contrary to the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996.”
This establishes the court's core holding that repeated frivolous pro se filings constitute an abuse of process that violates the statutory intent of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Lee Felder was originally charged with capital sexual battery and other crimes across three cases. He entered into a negotiated plea agreement …
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 Criminal Appeal Reform Act Of 1996 cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Robert Lee Felder was originally charged in three cases with capital sexual battery and other crimes. He entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the State in exchange for a lesser charge and the dismissal of other charges. This is his tenth collateral action in his 18-year-old case. After receiving Felder’s response to this court’s show cause order, we deny Felder’s petition. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999).
We hold that Felder is barred from further pro se filings in this court on the basis' that his pleadings have become an abuse of process which is contrary to the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996. This Act establishes the intent of the legislature that the terms and conditions of collateral review and the procedural bars to collateral review be strictly enforced. Metaphorically speaking, Felder will not be allowed any more bites at the appellate apple. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”); Carter v. State, 931 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Appellant’s repeated filing of frivolous appeals is diminishing this court’s ability to consider legitimate claims.”); see also 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 taxpayer’s money).
Accordingly, to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Felder from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings concerning Seventh Judicial Circuit Court case numbers 88-2217-CFAES and 88-2034-CFAES. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning these two cases and any more pleadings regarding these cases will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar. The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); see, e.g., Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus DENIED, Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
PALMER and EVANDER, 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)
- Carter v. State, 931 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)