NAPOLEON BRITT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Napoleon Britt, serving a life sentence for 1975 robbery and assault convictions, appealed the trial court's denial of his latest Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Fifth District affirmed the denial and prohibited Britt from filing further pro se pleadings in this court regarding the case due to the frivolous and abusive nature of his repeated filings.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Britt's motion and imposed sanctions prohibiting him from filing any further pro se pleadings concerning this case with the appellate court unless filed by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing.
[1] A defendant's repeated assertion of a meritless argument in postconviction motions constitutes an abuse of process and a waste of taxpayer money.
[2] Courts may prohibit a party from filing further pro se pleadings in a specific case to conserve judicial resources and prevent frivolous litigation.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Britt's pro se filings have become frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers' money.”
Establishes the court's characterization of Britt's repeated filings and the basis for imposing sanctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBritt was convicted by a Brevard County jury in 1975 of robbery and assault with intent to commit second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonm…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Napoleon Britt appeals the order entered by the trial court denying his latest rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.1 We affirm.
In 1975, a Brevard County jury convicted Britt of committing the crimes of robbery and assault with intent to commit second-degree murder. He was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. At that time, the Fourth District possessed appellate jurisdiction over Brevard County, and Britt’s direct appeal to that court resulted in an affirmance. See Britt v. State, 350 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Since that time, Britt has filed several rule 3.800(a) motions. As in the past, he again asserts the meritless argument that he received an improper general sentence.
Britt’s pro se filings have become frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers’ money. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing that frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience); Freeman v. State, 885 So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (noting the need for a limit on successiveness necessary to give due weight to finality and presumption of legality of final judgment and to restore public’s confidence in our criminal system of justice).
Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Britt from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings concerning Brevard County, Circuit Court No. 05-1974-CF-1096-AXXX. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Napoleon a/k/a Napolean Britt. Any further pleadings regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); Wilson v. State, 916 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED. Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Freeman v. State, 885 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Dywayne Tony Wilson v. State, 916 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Dorta v. Blackburn, 350 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Napoleon Britt v. State, 350 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)