Court Opinion

ID: 9959750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:02:54.430719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:52.324547
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                        STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D23-3174
                    LT Case No. 1997-CF-1882
                  _____________________________

WARREN OLIVER,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County.
Donna Goerner, Judge

Warren L. Oliver, Live Oak, Pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T.
Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

                           April 12, 2024

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(s) and sentence(s) in Seminole County Circuit Court
Case No. 1997-CF-1882 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
Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 1997-CF-1882. The Clerk
of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings
concerning the referenced case(s). The Clerk will summarily reject
any future filings regarding the referenced case(s) 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. (2019); Simpkins v. State,
909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

    APPELLANT PROHIBITED.

LAMBERT, JAY, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                 2