Benabe-Rivera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benabe-Rivera v. State

263 So. 3d 287

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 2019

DocketCase No. 5D18-315

StatusPublished

This text of 263 So. 3d 287 (Benabe-Rivera v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benabe-Rivera v. State, 263 So. 3d 287 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Due to Appellant's apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment(s) and sentence(s) in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2011-CF-005070, this Court issued an order directing Appellant 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 the response and finding it fails to show cause 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, Appellant 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 *288be 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 consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; Simpkins v. State, 909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Due to Appellant's apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment(s) and sentence(s) in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2011-CF-005070, this Court issued an order directing Appellant 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 the response and finding it fails to show cause 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, Appellant 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 *288be 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 consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; Simpkins v. State, 909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 So. 3d 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benabe-rivera-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack