ENIEL PLANAS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 10, 2023
• Docket: 23-0498
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 10, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-498 Lower Tribunal No. 06-21-M ________________

Eniel Planas, Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus

Eniel Planas, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Pro se petitioner Eniel Planas filed a successive petition for habeas

corpus with this court on March 15, 2023. Following our review, we denied

the petition and issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he

should not be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in this court

relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in circuit court case

number 06-CF-21-M.

In doing so, we noted that, since the affirmance of petitioner’s judgment

and sentence on direct appeal in 2009 (Planas v. State, 13 So. 3d 481 (Fla.

3d DCA 2009)), petitioner has filed at least fifteen (15) pro se postconviction

appeals or original proceedings in this Court, related to the convictions,

judgments, and sentences in circuit court case number 06-CF-21-M. On

each occasion, this court has denied or dismissed the petition, or has

affirmed the trial court’s order.

We further note that in the instant proceeding, petitioner raises the

same claim previously raised, in one form or another, in at least five (5) prior

appeals or original proceedings, each of which this court previously found to

be without merit. See, e.g., Planas v. State, 321 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA

2021); Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Planas v. State,

253 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Planas v. Jones, 248 So. 3d 1137 (Fla.

3d DCA 2018); Planas v. State, 212 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

2 Having considered petitioner’s response to the order to show cause,

we find that Eniel Planas has failed to show good cause why he should not

be barred from further pro se filings. By engaging in the above-described

conduct, Eniel Planas has abused the judicial process, continuing to seek

relief by raising procedurally barred claims and urging meritless positions

previously advanced and decided. Petitioner’s actions have caused this

court to expend precious and finite judicial resources, which could otherwise

be devoted to cases raising legitimate claims. See Hedrick v. State, 6 So. 3d

688, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting: “A legitimate claim that may merit relief

is more likely to be overlooked if buried within a forest of frivolous claims.”)

This court therefore directs the Clerk of the Third District Court of

Appeal to reject any filings submitted by or on behalf of Eniel Planas relating

to circuit court case number 06-CF-21-M, unless such filing has been

reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.