GRANTLEY v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“After repeated denials of multiple, successive filings, there comes a point where ‘enough is enough.’ Based upon careful review of defendant's filings in this court, we conclude that defendant has reached that point.”) (quoting Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410–11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)) (citation omitted); Horvatt v. State, 325 So. 3d 91, 92–93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (barring the defendant from further pro se filings after finding “apparent abuse of the legal process by ․ abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his sentence”); Wimberly v. State, 50 So. 3d 785, 786–88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (finding an “abuse of the post-conviction process” and “prohibiting further pro se filings” following “a campaign of filing motions for post-conviction relief” and one belated appeal even though not all claims were “identical”); Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“We do not take the action of barring a defendant from further pro se pleadings lightly. However, [e]nough is enough. Finding no merit in [the defendant]’s numerous filings, we must hold that his successive challenges to his judgments and sentence constitute an abuse of the judicial system.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

PER CURIAM.