Dennis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dennis v. State

826 So. 2d 1100, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14269, 2002 WL 31202306

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 2002

DocketNo. 5D02-2765

StatusPublished

This text of 826 So. 2d 1100 (Dennis 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

Dennis v. State, 826 So. 2d 1100, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14269, 2002 WL 31202306 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Davis Dennis’, pro se petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Dennis has previously been warned against filing any further pro se pleadings in this case. See Dennis v. State, 769 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Therefore, Dennis is prohibited from filing any additional appeals, pleadings, motions or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences from the Ninth Circuit Court case 93-10251 unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept from Dennis, as petitioner or appellant, any further pro se pleadings or filings which relate to that case. See Jackson v. Florida Department of Corrections, 790 So.2d 398 (Fla.2001), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2365, 153 L.Ed.2d 186 (2002); Vickson v. Single-tary, 734 So.2d 376 (Fla.1999); Carnes v. State, 781 So.2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (enough is enough).

PETITION DENIED.

SHARP, W., PETERSON and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Davis Dennis’, pro se petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Dennis has previously been warned against filing any further pro se pleadings in this case. See Dennis v. State, 769 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Therefore, Dennis is prohibited from filing any additional appeals, pleadings, motions or petitions pertaining to his convictions and sentences from the Ninth Circuit Court case 93-10251 unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept from Dennis, as petitioner or appellant, any further pro se pleadings or filings which relate to that case. See Jackson v. Florida Department of Corrections, 790 So.2d 398 (Fla.2001), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2365, 153 L.Ed.2d 186 (2002); Vickson v. Single-tary, 734 So.2d 376 (Fla.1999); Carnes v. State, 781 So.2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (enough is enough).

PETITION DENIED.

SHARP, W., PETERSON and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 So. 2d 1100, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14269, 2002 WL 31202306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack