OTIS TIMMONS vs STATE OF FLORIDA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT OTIS TIMMONS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D22-1810 LT Case No. 2007-CF-000802-A STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 14, 2022 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction. Otis Timmons, Avon Park, pro se. No Appearance for Respondent. PER CURIAM. This Court previously denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Due to Petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Marion County Fifth Judicial Circuit Court Case Number 2007-CF-000802-A, 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). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, 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 filings concerning his conviction and sentence imposed in Marion County case number 2007-CF-000802-A. The Clerk of this Court is directed to not accept any filings in this case unless they are signed 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). SANCTIONS IMPOSED. PETITIONER FUTURE FILINGS. EVANDER, WALLIS AND HARRIS, JJ., concur. 2 PROHIBITED FROM

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.