Isom v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Isom v. State

43 So. 3d 776, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13429, 2010 WL 2975422

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 10, 2010·No. 5D10-517·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In 1998, pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the State, David E. Isom entered no contest pleas in several cases. He now makes his thirteenth visit to this Court since his convictions and sentences.

We issued an order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), directing Isom to show cause why he should not be barred from filing more pro se challenges to his convictions. Having considered his response and finding it to be unpersuasive, we now prohibit Isom from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Brevard County Circuit Court Case Nos. 98^360-CFA, 98-2853-CFA, 98-2854-CFA, 98-2855-CFA, and 98-2856-CFA. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20, 23 (Fla.2008) (holding that rejecting future pleadings, motions, or other filings relating to convictions and sentences is appropriate sanction “in order to preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the interests of justice”).

The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Isom concerning this case. Any more pleadings or papers regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless signed 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 of this Court is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate Department of Corrections institution or facility pursuant to section [777]*777944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2010), for consideration of disciplinary procedures.

AFFIRMED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED; CERTIFIED COPY FORWARDED TO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

PALMER, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In 1998, pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the State, David E. Isom entered no contest pleas in several cases. He now makes his thirteenth visit to this Court since his convictions and sentences.

We issued an order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), directing Isom to show cause why he should not be barred from filing more pro se challenges to his convictions. Having considered his response and finding it to be unpersuasive, we now prohibit Isom from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Brevard County Circuit Court Case Nos. 98^360-CFA, 98-2853-CFA, 98-2854-CFA, 98-2855-CFA, and 98-2856-CFA. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20, 23 (Fla.2008) (holding that rejecting future pleadings, motions, or other filings relating to convictions and sentences is appropriate sanction “in order to preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the interests of justice”).

The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Isom concerning this case. Any more pleadings or papers regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless signed 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 of this Court is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate Department of Corrections institution or facility pursuant to section [777]*777944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2010), for consideration of disciplinary procedures.

AFFIRMED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED; CERTIFIED COPY FORWARDED TO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

PALMER, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Isom v. State, 43 So. 3d 776, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13429, 2010 WL 2975422 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

43 So. 3d 776 (Isom v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related