final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower
Tribunal Nos. 07-17576A & 17-3981, Cristina Miranda,
Laqual Henley, in proper person.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Nos. 3D15-1572 and 3D15-925, this Court ordered the
defendant, Titus Laqual Henley, to show cause why he should
not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro
se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related
to lower tribunal numbers 07-17576A and 09-16471A. On March
30, 2016, following the defendant's response to the order
to show cause, this Court ordered the Clerk of the Third
District Court of Appeal to refuse further filings related to
these lower tribunal cases unless the filings have been
reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member
of the Florida Bar in good standing. Henley v.
State, 201 So.3d 665, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), review
dismissed, No. SC16-1155 (Fla. July 1, 2016), and
review dismissed, No. SC 16-1344 (Fla. July 27,
2016). This Court also warned the defendant as follows:
"Any further and unauthorized pro se filings by Henley
will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of
written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of
Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action,
pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes."
than six months later, on August 29, 2017, the defendant
filed a "Notice of Appeal and or Motion for Appointment
of Counsel to File a Notice of Appeal to the Second Corrected
Order of Revocation of Probation, " referencing lower
tribunal case numbers 17-3981 and 07-17576A. Thereafter, this
Court ordered the defendant to show cause why his appeal
should not be dismissed where (1) he was prohibited from
filing any pro se pleading related to lower tribunal case
number 07-17576A, and (2) the charges in lower tribunal case
number 17-3981 had been nolle prossed.
response, the defendant asserted that he was appealing an
order revoking his probation in lower tribunal case number
07-17576A; the trial court's revocation order states that
the defendant has the right to the assistance of counsel in
taking an appeal; and, as an indigent defendant, he has a
constitutional right to the appointment of appellate counsel.
The defendant also asserted that, although the State nolled
prossed the charges in lower tribunal case number 17-3981,
prior to doing so, the trial court entered orders in case
number 17-3981 that "ultimately affected the
decision" in lower tribunal case number 07-1757A.
response to the defendant's response to this Court's
order to show cause, the State asserted that the
defendant's pro se pleading should be dismissed pursuant
to this Court's March 30, 2016 order prohibiting the
defendant from filing any further pro se pleadings. The State
further asserted that the defendant's claim that the
nolle prossed charges in case number 17-3981 were a basis for
an order of violation in case number 07-17576A is refuted by
the State's response, on January 16, 2018, this Court
ordered the Office of the Public Defender to examine the
records in lower tribunal case numbers 07-17576A and
09-16471A and to determine whether the defendant was found in
violation of his probation in lower case number 07-17576A on
September 1, 2017.
response to this Court's January 16, 2018 order, the
Assistant Public Defender stated that his review of the
records in lower tribunal cases 07-17576A and 09-16471A
reflects that no violation of probation hearing has been held
in case number 07-17576A since June 2010, which hearing
resulted in the revocation of the defendant's probation
and the imposition of a new split sentence including prison
time and probation. The Assistant Public Defender also noted
that the docket indicates that no hearing of any kind was
conducted on September 1, 2017, but that an affidavit of
violation of probation is pending in case number 07-17576A.
on the above, we conclude that the defendant has not only
violated this Court's March 30, 2016 order prohibiting
him from submitting any further unauthorized pro se filing
related to lower tribunal case number 07-17576A, but has also
provided inaccurate information to this Court, resulting in
the waste of judicial resources and the waste of the State
Attorney's Office's and the Public Defender's
Office's time. Accordingly, we dismiss the
defendant's pro se appeal filed on August 29, 2017.
Further, we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a copy