ENIEL PLANAS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 10, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-498 Lower Tribunal No. 06-21-M ________________

Eniel Planas, Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus

Eniel Planas, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent. Before EMAS, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Pro se petitioner Eniel Planas filed a successive petition for habeas corpus with this court on March 15, 2023. Following our review, we denied the petition and issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in this court relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in circuit court case number 06-CF-21-M.

In doing so, we noted that, since the affirmance of petitioner’s judgment and sentence on direct appeal in 2009 (Planas v. State, 13 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)), petitioner has filed at least fifteen (15) pro se postconviction appeals or original proceedings in this Court, related to the convictions, judgments, and sentences in circuit court case number 06-CF-21-M. On each occasion, this court has denied or dismissed the petition, or has affirmed the trial court’s order.

We further note that in the instant proceeding, petitioner raises the same claim previously raised, in one form or another, in at least five (5) prior appeals or original proceedings, each of which this court previously found to be without merit. See, e.g., Planas v. State, 321 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Planas v. State, 253 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Planas v. Jones, 248 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Planas v. State, 212 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Having considered petitioner’s response to the order to show cause, we find that Eniel Planas has failed to show good cause why he should not be barred from further pro se filings. By engaging in the above-described conduct, Eniel Planas has abused the judicial process, continuing to seek relief by raising procedurally barred claims and urging meritless positions previously advanced and decided. Petitioner’s actions have caused this court to expend precious and finite judicial resources, which could otherwise be devoted to cases raising legitimate claims. See Hedrick v. State, 6 So. 3d 688, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting: “A legitimate claim that may merit relief is more likely to be overlooked if buried within a forest of frivolous claims.”)

This court therefore directs the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to reject any filings submitted by or on behalf of Eniel Planas relating to circuit court case number 06-CF-21-M, unless such filing has been reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.