ROBERT WASHINGTON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court properly denies a successive and untimely rule 3.850 motion and may sanction a pro se litigant by prohibiting future filings unless signed by a Florida Bar member.
[1] A trial court may sanction a pro se litigant by prohibiting future filings unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(n).
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Washington appealed the denial of his rule 3.850 motion and a trial court order prohibiting him from filing future pro se pleadings unless sign…
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 Sanctions For Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ROBERT WASHINGTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Nos. 4D17-3513 and 4D17-3514
[February 7, 2018]
Consolidated appeals of orders denying rule 3.850 motions from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard Bober, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 97-3884CF10A and 97-4713CFA.
Robert Washington, Indiantown, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Robert Washington appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion, as well as the trial court’s order prohibiting him from filing future pro se pleadings unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar. We sua sponte consolidate the cases for review and affirm both orders. The trial court properly treated Washington’s habeas petition as a successive and untimely rule 3.850 motion. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it issued the sanction order barring further pro se filings from Washington. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n).
Affirmed.
GERBER, C.J., MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * *