We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s untimely and successive rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We reject appellant’s claim that the trial court was required to consider the “supplemental ground” that he filed before the State had responded to his motion. The supplemental ground was unauthorized because, effective July 1, 2013, appellant needed leave of Court to file an amendment after the court had issued an order requiring a response. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e); In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure, 132 So.3d 734 (Fla. 2013).

Further, we have reviewed the “supplemental ground” and find that it raises a frivolous and procedurally barred claim regarding an alleged defect in the charging information. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.140(o). Appellant is cautioned that the filing of frivolous postconviction proceedings may result in the sanction of the courts no longer accepting his pro se filings and referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999); § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).

Affirmed.