Crittenden v. State , 5D11–745.
Decision Date | 19 August 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 5D11–745.,5D11–745. |
Citation | 67 So.3d 1184 |
Parties | John W. CRITTENDEN, Petitioner,v.STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John W. Crittenden, Perry, pro se.Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In his three 1995 cases, John W. Crittenden entered into plea agreements and received concurrent prison sentences, followed by probation. In his subsequent appeal, this Court affirmed in all respects, except for reversing Crittenden's conviction and sentence for grand theft on double jeopardy grounds. Crittenden v. State, 684 So.2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
For the last fifteen years, we have considered and rejected numerous actions attacking Crittenden's convictions and sentences. See, e.g., Crittenden v. State, 988 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (Table); Crittenden v. State, 969 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (Table); Crittenden v. State, 840 So.2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (Table); Crittenden v. State, 743 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (Table).1 Crittenden now seeks a belated appeal of the denial of his latest postconviction motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In the motion, Crittenden attacked his upward departure sentences imposed pursuant to section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1993), after he violated his probation in 2004 by committing a new drug trafficking offense. Because he made the same arguments in a previous rule 3.800(a) motion, the instant motion was denied as it was successive. See McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388, 1390 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, we denied the belated appeal by separate order. On that same date, this Court also entered a show cause order pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2010), and State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48–49 (Fla.1999). Having carefully considered Crittenden's response, we conclude that he has provided no valid reason for filing this frivolous petition based upon an untimely notice of appeal, misleadingly made to appear as if it was timely filed.
In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); see Bauer v. State, 31 So.3d 220, 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) () ; Henderson v. State, 903 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ( ).
We conclude that Crittenden is abusing the judicial process and that he should be barred from further pro se filings. We, therefore, prohibit Crittenden from filing any more pro se pleadings with this Court concerning Marion County Fifth Circuit Court Case Nos. 95–2251–CF, 95–973–CF, and 95–1384–CF. See, e.g., Fox v. State, 60 So.3d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (); Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ( ); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410–11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). Any additional pleadings regarding this case will be accepted only if signed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar. See Floyd v. State, 62 So.3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Durr v. State, 57 So.3d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
Section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2010), reads in part:
944.279. Disciplinary procedures applicable to prisoner for filing frivolous or malicious actions or bringing false information before court.—
(1) At any time, and upon its own motion ... a court may conduct an inquiry into whether any action or appeal brought by a prisoner was brought in good faith. A prisoner who is found by a court ... to have brought a frivolous or malicious collateral criminal proceeding ..., or who knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth brought false information or evidence before the court, is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections.....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Desautel v. Sec'y
...does not establish that the district court of appeal failed to hear the merits of his claims. See, e.g., Crittenden v. State, 67 So.3d 1184, 1185 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("We reiterate that a per curiam affirmance without opinion is not an indication that the case was not considered on the ......
-
Johnson v. State, 3D18-1988
...2017). The denial of Johnson's petition for writ of habeas corpus in the previous case was based on the merits. See Crittenden v. State, 67 So.3d 1184, 1185 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("[A] per curiam affirmance without opinion is not an indication that the case was not considered on the merit......
-
Dennis v. State , 5D11–680.
...67 So.3d 1184Issac B. DENNIS, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.No. 5D11–680.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. Aug. 19, Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Jon B. Morgan, Judge.James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Assistant Public Def......