Court Opinion

ID: 9903982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:13:20.480455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:09.403596
License: Public Domain

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

DONALD OTIS WILLIAMS,

            Petitioner,

v.                                          Case No. 5D22-1163
                                            LT Case No. 2011-CF-105

STATE OF FLORIDA,

          Respondent.
________________________________/

Opinion filed October 28, 2022

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order
from the Circuit Court for Lake County,
Heidi Davis, Judge.

Donald Otis Williams, Raiford, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Patrick A. Bobek,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

      This Court previously denied Petitioner’s petition for Writ of Certiorari.

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

repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filing attaching his judgment and
sentence in Lake County Fifth Judicial Circuit case number No. 2011- CF-

105, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why he

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

So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). Petitioner’s response is insufficient and failed to show

cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, we conclude that

Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from

further pro se filings.

      In order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is prohibited from

filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning his conviction

and sentence imposed in Lake County Fifth Judicial Circuit case number No.

2011- CF-105. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any filings

concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing with

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).

SANCTIONS IMPOSED. PETITIONER PROHIBITED FROM FUTURE

FILINGS.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

                                        2