final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
of Original Jurisdiction - Habeas Corpus. Lower Tribunal No.
Jackson, in proper person.
Moody, Attorney General, for respondent.
EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.
Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
contending, inter alia, that the sentences imposed in lower
court case number 77-34723 violated the Double Jeopardy
Clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions. We
find this claim (and the other claims raised) to be wholly
without merit and would ordinarily deny this petition without
further discussion. However, having reviewed and considered
Jackson's litigation history in this court, further
action is warranted.
now the fortieth pro se appeal or original proceeding Jackson
has filed with this Court since 1992. Jackson has continued to
raise and litigate meritless claims in successive appeals and
petitions, even after we have affirmed the trial court's
order or denied relief sought by him in an original
proceeding filed with this court. Indeed, in our 2000 opinion
denying one of Jackson's prior pro se petitions for
habeas corpus relief (3D00-52), we placed Jackson on notice:
The defendant's petition for habeas corpus is denied as
frivolous and an abuse of process. It is well established
that successive motions which were or could have been raised
on appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings are
procedurally barred. See, e.g., Rivera v. State, 728
So.2d 1165 (Fla.1998); Christopher v. State, 489
So.2d 22 (Fla.1986); Francois v. State, 470 So.2d
687 (Fla.1985); Duncan v. State, 728 So.2d 1237
(Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Any further frivolous filings on the part
of the petitioner will result in forfeiture of all or part of
his gain time. § 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997);
Duncan, 728 So.2d at 1237 ("We caution
defendant that 'a prisoner who is found by a court to
have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding or
appeal in any court is subject to having his or her gain time
forfeited.'"); see also Green v. State, 743
So.2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Jackson v. State, 774 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
would appear Jackson has failed to heed this warning, and has
engaged in the filing of meritless, frivolous and successive
claims, continuing to seek relief from this court on the very
same claim notwithstanding prior adverse determinations.
Jackson's actions have caused this court to expend
precious and finite judicial resources which could otherwise
be devoted to cases raising legitimate claims. Hedrick v.
State, 6 So.3d 688, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ("A
legitimate claim that may merit relief is more likely to be
overlooked if buried within a forest of frivolous
we acknowledge that pro se parties must be afforded a genuine
and adequate opportunity to exercise their constitutional
right of access to the courts, that right is not unfettered.
Although termination of the right to proceed pro se will
undoubtedly impose a burden on a litigant who may be unable
to afford counsel, the courts must strike a balance between
the pro se litigant's right to participate in the
judicial process and the courts' authority to protect the
judicial process from abuse. The right to proceed pro se may
be forfeited where it is determined, after proper notice and
an opportunity to be heard, that the party has abused the
judicial process by the continued filing of successive or
meritless collateral claims in a criminal proceeding.
State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). As our
sister court aptly described it, there comes a point when
"enough is enough." Isley v. State, 652
So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
defendant, Carlos Jackson, is hereby directed to show cause,
within forty-five days from the date of this opinion, why he
should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se
appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his
convictions, judgments and sentences in circuit court case
number 77-34723. Absent a showing of good cause, we intend to
direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to
refuse to accept any such papers relating to this circuit
court case number unless it has been reviewed and signed by
an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar
in good standing.
and absent a showing of good cause, any such further and
unauthorized pro se filings by this defendant will subject
him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of
written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of
Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary ...