Court Opinion

ID: 9903521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:51:30.930963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:30.593998
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

MILTON LEWIS,

           Appellant,
                                          Case No. 5D22-2642
 v.                                       LT Case No. 2001-CF-034524-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

          Appellee.
________________________________/

Opinion filed February 15, 2023

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
Tesha Ballou, Judge.

Milton Lewis, Daytona Beach, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Kristen L.
Davenport, Assistant Attorney
General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

      Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive,

repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and

sentence in Brevard County Circuit Court Case Number 2001-CF-034524-A,
this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should

not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.

2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding

it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude

that Appellant is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from

further pro se filings.

      In order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from

filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Brevard County

Circuit Court Case No. 2001-CF-034524-A.          The Clerk of this Court is

directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced

case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the

referenced case unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida

Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough

is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this

opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary

proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2022); Simpkins v. State, 909 So.

2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

      APPELLANT PROHIBITED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

                                      2