SHURON HESTER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a trial court's order prohibiting a pro se litigant from filing further pleadings. The court found the trial court retained jurisdiction to impose sanctions for frivolous filings, even while an appeal was pending, and that the litigant had abused the judicial process.
Yes, the trial court retained jurisdiction to issue the order prohibiting further pro se filings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the litigant had abused the judicial process.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions for abuse of process and frivolous filings even when an appeal of a related but distinct matter is pending, because…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When the jurisdiction of the appellate court attaches, it is exclusive as to the subject covered by the appeal.”
Establishes the general rule regarding appellate jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Shuron Hester, has a history of frivolous appeals following his convictions. After repeated warnings and dismissals of his postconvicti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Litigant Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant appeals from a March 2019 trial court order prohibiting him from filing further pro se pleadings. We affirm the order on appeal.
We previously affirmed the appellant’s convictions for capital sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation. See Hester v. State, 149 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The appellant proceeded to file six more appeals in this court, none of which had merit. The trial court, meanwhile, repeatedly had warned the appellant against additional frivolous filings. The trial court later dismissed another of the appellant’s postconviction motions, and in its order, the trial court directed the appellant to show cause why sanctions
should not be imposed. The appellant responded to the show cause order and appealed the dismissal of his latest postconviction motion at the same time. A month later, the trial court rendered the sanction order now on review.
The appellant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order because his appeal of a previous order was pending at the time. It is true that “[w]hen the jurisdiction of the appellate court attaches, it is exclusive as to the subject covered by the appeal.” Willey v. W.J. Hoggson Corp., 105 So. 126, 128 (Fla. 1925). Conversely, though, that jurisdiction is not exclusive as to those matters not covered by the appeal. See Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 152 So. 849, 850 (Fla. 1933) (rejecting argument that lower court loses jurisdiction over matters not “covered by the appeal”); Schultz v. Schickedanz, 884 So. 2d 422, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“[A] trial court is divested of jurisdiction upon notice of appeal except with regard to those matters which do not interfere with the power and authority of the appellate court or the rights of a party to the appeal which are under consideration by the appellate court.” (quoting Palma Sola Harbour Condo., Inc. v. Huber, 374 So. 2d 1135, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)).
Courts have “the inherent authority to limit abuses of the judicial process by pro se litigants whose frivolous or excessive filings interfere with the timely administration of justice.” Flowers v. State, 278 So. 3d 899, 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); cf. Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 1995). Such a matter is “independent and collateral,” and the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to address its outstanding show-cause order simply because the appellant had already appealed the denial of his postconviction motion. Cf. Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 651 So. 2d 701, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (noting that a trial court retains jurisdiction to consider sanctions for discovery abuses and violations of court orders because such a matter is “independent and collateral”).
As to the merits of the order on appeal, in 2017, the trial court cautioned the appellant that continued successive pro se filings could subject him to sanctions. The appellant was clearly on notice that he could not file successive or frivolous claims, yet he continued to do so. The appellant failed to show the trial court
acted outside of its discretion to prohibit future pro se filings. See Edwards v. State, 192 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming trial court order prohibiting appellant from future pro se filings where appellant failed to provide any grounds to find his multitude of filings were not an abuse of process and a waste of judicial resources).
AFFIRMED. The Court warns the appellant that any of his future filings that it determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2019).
ROBERTS, NORDBY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (52 total)
-
Palm Beach Ests. v. Bula E. Croker, 106 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1932)…hich forbids the Circuit Court from defeating o'Ur appellate jurisdiction, by permitting a dismissal of a bill of complaint while an appeal predicated on its alleged insufficiency is pending undisposed of (Willey v. W. J. Hodgson Corp., 89 Fla. 446, 105 Sou. Rep. 126), precludes the defeat, indirectly, of what has already been decided by an actual decision of this Court. Such circumvention cannot be accomplished after remand of the cause by permitting an amendment of the record indirectly having the effect of av…
-
McGURN v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992)…appellate court’s jurisdiction is exclusive with respect to the subject matter of an appeal, once the appeal is taken the trial court will lack the jurisdiction to take any further action in the matter. See Willey v. W.J. Hoggson Corp., 89 Fla. 446, 105 So. 126 (1925). Thus, the parties will be deemed to have waived any matter reserved for future adjudication by the trial court, with the exception of attorneys’ fees and costs. However, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(b), the district court…
-
Rorick v. Foster, 101 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1931)…lly pending in the Supreme Court, and whatever the lower court did thereafter in proceeding in the cause was done subject to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this court on the pending appeal from the jurisdictional order. Willey v. Hoggson, 105 So. 126, 89 Fla. 446; Waring v. Bass, 80 So. 514, 76 Fla. 583. While the general rule is that a plea to the jurisdiction based on special matter of fact dehors the record where the truth of the return is admitted must be interposed in person and not by att…
Previewing 3 of 52 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1995)
- Palma Sola Harbour Condo., Inc. v. Huber, 374 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 113 Fla. 668 (Fla. 1933)
- Watford v. State, 884 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Wimes v. State, 322 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Edwards v. State, 192 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)