Case ID: so3d_172/html/0533-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leonardo T. MORALES, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, et al., Repondents.
    No. 3D14-2326.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 12, 2015.
    Leonardo T. Morales, in proper person.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Keri T. Joseph, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
    Before SHEPHERD, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

On June 3, 2015, this Court issued an opinion denying Leonardo T. Morales’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Our opinion contained an order to show cause why Morales should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his criminal sentence in circuit court case number 85-3768.

Morales responded by filing with this Court a motion for rehearing/reconsideration, a response to the order to show cause, and a request for a written opinion. In this omnibus submission, Morales again raises his contention that his criminal sentence was illegal because his sentencing guidelines scoresheet misidentified the primary offense (of the two crimes for which he was convicted).

Morales’s response raises no new information or. argument for our consideration. This matter is well settled on the merits. Accordingly, we conclude that Morales has not shown good cause to justify further pro se filings of appeals, petitions, motions, or other proceedings with this Court.

We must balance Morales’s pro se right of access to courts with this Court’s need to devote finite resources to legitimate appeals, recognizing the seriousness of the sanction when the litigant is a criminal defendant. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999). After an order to show cause and an opportunity to respond, a court may prevent such further filings. Id.

It is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the Court of the Third District Court of Appeal shall refuse further filings related to case number 85-3768; provided, however, that filings related to case number 85-3768 may be accepted by the Clerk if such filings have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.

Any further and unauthorized pro se filings by Morales will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.

The motion for rehearing is denied.

Order issued. 
      
      . See, e.g., Morales v. State, 73 So.3d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Table) (affirming the trial court's findings on the merits upon Morales’s 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence).