Goolsby v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goolsby v. State

121 So. 3d 1163, 2013 WL 5288026, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15008

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 2013

DocketNo. 5D13-1426

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 3d 1163 (Goolsby 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

Goolsby v. State, 121 So. 3d 1163, 2013 WL 5288026, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15008 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the latest of his many appellate filings in his 1996 case, Phillip A. Goolsby has filed a habeas petition, raising an issue of speedy trial, first claimed by him in a habeas petition 12 years, and many pleadings, ago. His issue is successive, as well as untimely and without merit — as shown by the fact that, two years later, he litigated the matter all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Goolsby v. State, 860 So.2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 925, 124 S.Ct. 2887, 159 L.Ed.2d 785 (2004), review dismissed, 898 So.2d 937 (Fla.2005).

We conclude that Goolsby has provided no valid reason to be allowed continued pro se access to this Court. We hold that he is abusing the judicial process by the continued filing of frivolous pleadings, and that he should be barred from further pro se filings in Osceola County Circuit Court Case No. 96-CF-91-A. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). See also Hastings v. State, 79 So.3d 739, 742 (Fla.2011); Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221, 223 (Fla.2009); Hutchinson v. State, 979 So.2d 377, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Phillip A. Goolsby, and any further pleadings will be summarily rejected by the Clerk unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk of this Court is therefore directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to Goolsby and the appropriate institution for consideration of available disciplinary procedures. See §§ 944.279(1), 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). Rehearing "will not be entertained.

Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Gools-by and the Department of Corrections.

TORPY, C.J., PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the latest of his many appellate filings in his 1996 case, Phillip A. Goolsby has filed a habeas petition, raising an issue of speedy trial, first claimed by him in a habeas petition 12 years, and many pleadings, ago. His issue is successive, as well as untimely and without merit — as shown by the fact that, two years later, he litigated the matter all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Goolsby v. State, 860 So.2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 925, 124 S.Ct. 2887, 159 L.Ed.2d 785 (2004), review dismissed, 898 So.2d 937 (Fla.2005).

We conclude that Goolsby has provided no valid reason to be allowed continued pro se access to this Court. We hold that he is abusing the judicial process by the continued filing of frivolous pleadings, and that he should be barred from further pro se filings in Osceola County Circuit Court Case No. 96-CF-91-A. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). See also Hastings v. State, 79 So.3d 739, 742 (Fla.2011); Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221, 223 (Fla.2009); Hutchinson v. State, 979 So.2d 377, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Phillip A. Goolsby, and any further pleadings will be summarily rejected by the Clerk unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk of this Court is therefore directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to Goolsby and the appropriate institution for consideration of available disciplinary procedures. See §§ 944.279(1), 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). Rehearing "will not be entertained.

Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Gools-by and the Department of Corrections.

TORPY, C.J., PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 3d 1163, 2013 WL 5288026, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goolsby-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack