Randy L. Fox v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Randy L. Fox v. State of Florida

209 So. 3d 686, 2017 WL 582467, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1829

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-1482

StatusPublished

This text of 209 So. 3d 686 (Randy L. Fox v. State of Florida) 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

Randy L. Fox v. State of Florida, 209 So. 3d 686, 2017 WL 582467, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1829 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed the summary denial of the appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(m), but retained jurisdiction for consideration of the imposition of sanctions.

The appellant has failed to obtain relief in at least six previous postconviction cases he filed in this court to challenge this judgment and sentence. Due to the appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence, this court issued an order directing him to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). The appellant filed a motion for rehearing responding to the order to show cause that does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.

Therefox-e, because the appellant’s repeated attacks on his judgment and sentence have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this court concerning Bay County Circuit Court case number 87-1854-G. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ, CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed the summary denial of the appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(m), but retained jurisdiction for consideration of the imposition of sanctions.

The appellant has failed to obtain relief in at least six previous postconviction cases he filed in this court to challenge this judgment and sentence. Due to the appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence, this court issued an order directing him to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). The appellant filed a motion for rehearing responding to the order to show cause that does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.

Therefox-e, because the appellant’s repeated attacks on his judgment and sentence have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this court concerning Bay County Circuit Court case number 87-1854-G. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ, CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 So. 3d 686, 2017 WL 582467, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randy-l-fox-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack