final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Michael C.
Anthony Bieser, pro se, Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant, Howard Anthony Bieser, appeals from an order
denying his postconviction motion brought pursuant to Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial
court's denial but write to discuss the Appellant's
abusive filing history in this Court and impose sanctions.
Appellant was originally charged with committing a lewd and
lascivious act upon a child. In May of 1993, he pleaded nolo
contendere to the charge and sentencing was deferred until a
later date. Six days before his scheduled sentencing hearing,
he filed a pro se motion to withdraw plea. The trial court
granted the motion. Subsequently, the State filed an amended
information charging the Appellant with capital sexual
battery on a child under 12 years of age (count I) and a lewd
and lascivious act upon a child (count II). On November 2,
1993, the Appellant was convicted as charged after a jury
trial. On December 21, 1993, he was sentenced to life in
prison on count I. He was not adjudicated guilty or sentenced
on count II. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on
appeal, with the mandate issuing on March 28, 1995. See
Bieser v. State, 651 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
the Appellant's conviction and sentence became final, he
has filed numerous postconviction motions, appeals, and
petitions. In addition to the two rule 3.850 motions at issue
in the instant appeal, the Appellant has filed five rule
3.850 motions and two motions to correct illegal sentence
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The
denial of those motions resulted in five postconviction
appeals. See Bieser v. State, 677 So.2d 59 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1996); Bieser v. State, 706 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1998) (Table); Bieser v. State, Case No.
1D96-2289; Bieser v. State, Case No. 1D05-4662;
Bieser v. State, 160 So.3d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
He has received no substantive relief in any of these cases
aside from the reversal of the summary denial of two claims.
See Bieser, 677 So.2d at 59. The order denying those
claims after an evidentiary hearing was subsequently affirmed
on appeal. See Bieser, 706 So.2d at 287. The
Appellant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
in this Court, which was denied. See Bieser v.
State, 845 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
review of these postconviction motions, appeals, and
petitions reveals a pattern of filing repetitive, untimely,
and successive claims. The Appellant has raised the same
double jeopardy claim on four separate occasions. Twice, he
challenged the information as fundamentally defective. On
three occasions, his rule 3.850 motions were untimely and
failed to establish a valid exception to the time limitation.
Four of his rule 3.850 motions were successive without
establishing good cause for the violation of the prohibition
against successive rule 3.850 motions.
instant appeal, the Appellant asked this Court to review an
order denying two rule 3.850 motions: the Appellant's
fourth rule 3.850 motion, originally filed on September 9,
1996, [*] and his seventh rule 3.850 motion, which
was filed on March 5, 2018. The claims raised in these
motions were either untimely, successive, not cognizable in a
postconviction proceeding, or some combination of the three.
Court has the inherent authority to sanction an abusive
litigant whose pattern of frivolous and repetitive filings
consume scarce judicial resources and delay the resolution of
legitimate filings. See Armstead v. State, 817 So.2d
841, 842 (Fla. 2002); Hall v. State, 94 So.3d 656,
656 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Here, given the Appellant's
obvious abuse of the judicial process, we can think of no
grounds that would explain or excuse his excessive frivolous
filings and we need not allow him an opportunity to attempt
to explain or excuse them. Therefore, we hold that the
Appellant is barred from further pro se filings in this Court
related to the judgment and sentence in Bay County Circuit
Court case number 1993-CF-0130. The Clerk of Court is
directed not to accept any future filings concerning this
case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of
The Florida Bar. Any filings that violate the terms of this
opinion may result in a referral to the appropriate
institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in
section 944.279, Florida Statutes.