Cortes v. State

53 So. 3d 390, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1083, 2011 WL 335568
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 4, 2011
DocketNo. 5D10-3114
StatusPublished

This text of 53 So. 3d 390 (Cortes 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
Cortes v. State, 53 So. 3d 390, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1083, 2011 WL 335568 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PER CURIAM.

In his 2000 case, Eli Cortes [“Cortes”] was convicted of three drug trafficking charges, and his convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Cortes v. State, 827 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). He subsequently filed several other post-conviction motions and appeals pertaining to the 2000 convictions and sentences. In this current proceeding, Cortes appealed the denial of his two most recent rule 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentence. We affirmed, Cortes v. State, 48 So.3d 855 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), then issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), because the motions appeared to be successive and/or procedurally barred.

Having considered Cortes’ response, we conclude that he has provided no valid reason for filing this frivolous appeal, that [391]*391he is abusing the judicial process, and that he should be barred from further pro se filings. We therefore prohibit Cortes from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 00-CF-4485. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also Bauer v. State, 31 So.3d 220, 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Any additional pleadings or motions in this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary action. See §§ 944.09, 944.279(1), 944.28(2), Fla. Stat. (2010).

Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.

GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Isley v. State
652 So. 2d 409 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Bauer v. State
31 So. 3d 220 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
State v. Spencer
751 So. 2d 47 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 So. 3d 390, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1083, 2011 WL 335568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cortes-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.