Wright v. State

• Decision Date: 07 February 2018
• Docket Number: No. 3D16–2478,3D16–2478
• Citation: 239 So.3d 156
• Parties: Walter Lee WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

239 So.3d 156

Walter Lee WRIGHT, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16–2478

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018.

Walter Lee Wright, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

Walter Lee Wright files a Motion for Rehearing with respect to the underlying appeal. For the reasons that follow, we deny the motion and order Wright to show cause why this Court should not prohibit him from making further pro se filings related to circuit court case number F01–7689.

Ordinarily, we would deny this motion without further discussion. However, further action is warranted by this Court, as Wright's abuse of the judicial process is apparent on the face of the motion.¹

239 So.3d 157

Initially, Wright appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Following review of this successive appeal, this Court per curiam affirmed on December 21, 2016.

Wright then filed a motion for rehearing with this Court on January 11, 2017. The rehearing was denied on January 20, 2017. On February 28, 2017, Wright filed a motion to clarify and recall this Court's mandate. The motion was denied on March 6, 2017.

Turning to Wright's current filing before this Court, the second "Motion for Rehearing," of this Court's affirmance of the trial court's order, we note there is no request for relief in the Motion for Rehearing. Instead, Wright engages in profane name calling and threatening language.

Including the underlying appeal, Wright has filed at least thirteen unsuccessful appeals with this Court, stemming from his 2006 convictions and sentences for first-degree murder with a firearm, armed robbery with a firearm, armed burglary, and attempted carjacking with a firearm. When Wright has articulated a claim, these claims have all previously been raised on direct and collateral appeal and have been decided on the merits against Wright.²

...