Crittenden v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13058
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Crittenden's three 1995 cases yielded concurrent prison terms followed by probation.
- This Court previously affirmed his convictions and sentences except for reversing grand theft on double jeopardy grounds in 1996.
- Over the past fifteen years, Crittenden has repeatedly attacked his convictions and sentences in various actions that this Court has rejected.
- He filed a belated Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging upward-departure sentences under section 921.0016 after a 2004 probation violation for a drug offense; the motion was deemed successive and denied.
- A separate section 944.279 show-cause order was issued; after review, the Court found no valid reason for filing the frivolous petition and barred further pro se filings.
- The Court prohibited Crittenden from filing any more pro se pleadings concerning specific Marion County cases unless signed by a Florida Bar member and forwarded the opinion to the Department of Corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crittenden may continue pro se filings | Crittenden seeks belated relief and further petitions. | Court should bar frivolous, repetitive pro se filings to conserve resources. | Yes; Crittenden barred from further pro se filings unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar. |
| Whether the belated Rule 3.800(a) motion was properly denied as successive | Arguments raised previously in 3.800(a) should be considered; belated appeal permissible. | McCrae v. State prohibits successive Rule 3.800(a) motions. | Denied as successive; no merit to belated appeal. |
| Whether to forward the opinion for disciplinary proceedings | Petitioner should face no additional sanctions. | Disciplinary procedures may apply under 944.279(1). | Certified copy forwarded to corrections for disciplinary consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989) (frivolous petitions waste court resources)
- McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983) (successive Rule 3.800(a) motions barred)
- Bauer v. State, 31 So.3d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (frivolous 3.800 filings increase court workload)
- Henderson v. State, 903 So.2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (frivolous filings consume limited resources)
- Fox v. State, 60 So.3d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (all filings must end; postconviction challenges have limits)
- Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (frivolous, abusive filings waste taxpayers' money)
- Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough")
- State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999) (show-cause authority for frivolous filings)
- Floyd v. State, 62 So.3d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (pro se filings require Bar sign-off for continued access)