Orr v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orr v. State

691 So. 2d 572, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1997 WL 169460

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 1997

DocketNo. 97-445

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 691 So. 2d 572 (Orr 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

Orr v. State, 691 So. 2d 572, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1997 WL 169460 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the filing of the appellant’s latest Rule 3.850 motion constitutes an abuse of process. Because his appeals are dissipating limited judicial resources, and we expect they will continue, the appellant, Jeff Orr, is prohibited from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings concerning his convictions and sentences. Accordingly, absent any further order by this court, any further pleadings regarding these convictions and sentences will be summarily rejected and returned by the clerk of this court, unless that pleading is filed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. See Pinkney v. State, 682 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Johnson v. State, 680 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Holmes v. State, 669 So.2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 652 So.2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the filing of the appellant’s latest Rule 3.850 motion constitutes an abuse of process. Because his appeals are dissipating limited judicial resources, and we expect they will continue, the appellant, Jeff Orr, is prohibited from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings concerning his convictions and sentences. Accordingly, absent any further order by this court, any further pleadings regarding these convictions and sentences will be summarily rejected and returned by the clerk of this court, unless that pleading is filed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. See Pinkney v. State, 682 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Johnson v. State, 680 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Holmes v. State, 669 So.2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 652 So.2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 572, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1997 WL 169460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack