TARONN KENARD BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal prohibited an incarcerated defendant from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, or motions regarding his conviction for second-degree murder after he filed numerous successive motions raising frivolous and repetitive claims over a decade.
The court prohibited Brown from filing any additional pro se appeals, petitions, or motions concerning his conviction and sentence in Case No. F00-15843 unless signed by a duly licensed Florida Bar member in good standing. The court concluded that Brown forfeited his right to proceed pro se through abuse of the judicial process by filing successive motions that were repeatedly heard, considered, and rejected.
[1] A party may forfeit the right to proceed pro se when they abuse the judicial process by repeatedly filing successive motions that have already been heard, considered, and…
[2] Courts may prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, or motions concerning a specific conviction and sentence if the litigant has a history of fi…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“frivolous post conviction motions and petitions are not among an incarcerated person's procedural vehicles”
Establishes that while incarcerated persons have procedural vehicles to challenge their convictions, frivolous postconviction filings are not protected
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaronn Kenard Brown was convicted of second-degree murder in Case No. F00-15843. Since his conviction, he has filed numerous motions and appeals in th…
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 Right To Proceed Pro Se cases and more on FLexlaw
*766 ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On May 19, 2016, Taronn Kenard Brown filed an appeal from the trial court’s March 4, 2016, Order Denying Defendant’s Successive Motion for Postconviction Relief and Order Prohibiting Defendant from Filing Any Further Pro Se Proceedings. On September 12, 2016, we dismissed the appeal as duplicative of a prior appeal, and we ordered Mr. Brown to show cause why this court should not prohibit him from submitting further pro se appeals, petition or motions regarding lower tribunal case number F00-15843. Mr. Brown did not comply with this order, and, after careful review of the record and in consideration of the prior appeals by Mr. Brown, we are compelled to prohibit Mr. Brown from filing any additional pro se appeals, petitions or motions that concern his conviction and sentence in Case No. F00-15843, unless such pleadings are signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
Since his conviction of second degree murder in Case No. 00-15843, Mr. Brown has filed numerous motions and appeals, many raising claims of newly discovered evidence, which have been denied, including in this court case numbers 3D04-673, 3D06-539, 3D06-701, 3D06-703, 3D06-2592, 3D09-1697, 3D09-1906, 3D10-1843, 3D14-1470, 3D14-2837, 3D15-1237, and 3D16-865. As we have stated before, although “incarcerated persons have a full panoply of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarcerations,’ ... frivolous post conviction motions and petitions are not among an incarcerated person’s procedural vehicles.” Dawson v. State 121 So.3d 63, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting Edwards v. State, 96 So.3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)). “The right to proceed pro se will be forfeited where a party abuses the judicial process by continued filing of ‘successive motions which have been heard, considered, rejected and then raised again.’” Jimenez v. State, 196 So.3d 499, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Concepcion v. State, 944 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). We conclude Mr. Brown has forfeited his right to further pro se filings.
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept for filing in this court any further appeals, petitions or motions relating to Mr. Brown’s conviction and sentence in Case No. F00-15843, unless they are filed by a Florida Bar member in good standing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Yuri Bery v. Ghassan Fahel, D.O., 96 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Edwards v. State, 96 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Katracy Dawson v. State, 121 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)