Westbrook v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Westbrook v. State

149 So. 3d 723, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16846, 2014 WL 5151624

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 2014

Docket3D14-2226

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 149 So. 3d 723 (Westbrook 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

Westbrook v. State, 149 So. 3d 723, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16846, 2014 WL 5151624 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

' PER CURIAM.

We affirm without further discussion the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. However, we write to place Appellant Ananias Westbrook on notice that the issue in the instant appeal has been raised by him in prior motions filed with the trial court and in prior appeals filed with this court, and has been resolved on the merits adversely to Appellant. See Westbrook v. State, 122 So.3d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Westbrook v. State, 116 So.3d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The filing of repetitive motions, and the prosecution of repetitive appeals, seeking to re-litigate claims which *724 have previously been resolved on the merits and affirmed on appeal constitutes an abuse of the judicial process and subjects a pro se party to sanctions. The right to proceed pro se may be forfeited where it is determined, after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, that the party has abused the judicial process by the continued filing of successive, meritless or frivolous collateral claims in a criminal proceeding. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). Other possible sanctions include the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action. See § 944,279(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). “Given the possibility of sanctions, prisoners should ‘stop and think’ before filing frivolous collateral criminal challenges or appeals.” Marc v. State, 46 So.3d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Spencer v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr, 823 So.2d 752, 756 (Fla.2002)).

Affirmed.

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

' PER CURIAM.

We affirm without further discussion the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. However, we write to place Appellant Ananias Westbrook on notice that the issue in the instant appeal has been raised by him in prior motions filed with the trial court and in prior appeals filed with this court, and has been resolved on the merits adversely to Appellant. See Westbrook v. State, 122 So.3d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Westbrook v. State, 116 So.3d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The filing of repetitive motions, and the prosecution of repetitive appeals, seeking to re-litigate claims which *724 have previously been resolved on the merits and affirmed on appeal constitutes an abuse of the judicial process and subjects a pro se party to sanctions. The right to proceed pro se may be forfeited where it is determined, after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, that the party has abused the judicial process by the continued filing of successive, meritless or frivolous collateral claims in a criminal proceeding. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). Other possible sanctions include the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action. See § 944,279(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). “Given the possibility of sanctions, prisoners should ‘stop and think’ before filing frivolous collateral criminal challenges or appeals.” Marc v. State, 46 So.3d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Spencer v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr, 823 So.2d 752, 756 (Fla.2002)).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 So. 3d 723, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16846, 2014 WL 5151624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westbrook-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack