DERRICK JENKINS,
v.
MARK INCH, ETC.,
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 denied Derrick Jenkins' petition for habeas corpus relief, finding his claims meritless. Due to his extensive history of filing unsuccessful and successive appeals, the court issued an order to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se actions related to his case.
The court held that Jenkins' petition for habeas corpus relief was wholly without merit and denied it. The court also found that further action was warranted due to Jenkins' abuse of the judicial process through repeated filings.
[1] A party may forfeit the right to proceed pro se if they abuse the judicial process by repeatedly filing meritless or successive collateral claims after proper notice and…
[2] Courts may direct clerks to refuse filings in a party's case unless reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney if the party has abused the judicial process through contin…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We find the petition to be wholly without merit and deny it.”
Establishes the court's decision on the habeas corpus petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDerrick Jenkins petitioned for habeas corpus relief, challenging his conviction for robbery with a firearm and his sentence as a violent career crimin…
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 Right To Proceed Pro Se cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Derrick Jenkins petitions for habeas corpus relief from his conviction for robbery with a firearm and his sentence as a violent career criminal. He charges
error to the firearm element of his conviction on the basis of Hines v. State, 983 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), as well as to his sentence as a violent career criminal due to the state’s purported failure to comply with section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (2003).
We find the petition to be wholly without merit and deny it. Upon consideration of Jenkins’ litigation history in this court, we deem further action is warranted. This is the latest of thirteen unsuccessful pro se appellate or original proceedings initiated by Jenkins pertaining to the underlying case since his direct appeal in 2006.1
On December 2, 2015, the trial court entered an order directing its clerk not to accept any further filings in Jenkins’ case unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.1 Jenkins v. State, 959 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 985 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (denying habeas); Jenkins v. State, 17 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (denying prohibition); Jenkins v. State, 28 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 54 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 50 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 77 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 129 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 149 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (voluntarily dismissed); Jenkins v. State, 166 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 194 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 278 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (denying habeas).
However, since the entry of that order and our subsequent affirmance of it in Jenkins v. State, 194 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), Jenkins has continued to seek relief from this court, notwithstanding prior adverse determinations. As such, his “actions have caused this court to expend precious and finite judicial resources which could otherwise be devoted to cases raising legitimate claims.” Jackson v. State, 44 Fla.
L. Weekly D2899, D2900 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 4, 2019).
The right to proceed pro se may be forfeited where, after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, it is determined that such party has abused the judicial process by the continued filing of meritless or successive collateral claims. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
The petitioner, Derrick Jenkins, 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 number F03-24863. Absent a showing a good cause, we intend to direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such paper relating to this circuit court case number unless it has been reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar.
Additionally, as we observed in Jackson, we remind Jenkins that, absent a showing of good cause, any further and unauthorize filings “will subject
him to appropriate sanctions . . . including the forfeiture of gain time.” Jackson, 44 Fla. L. Weekly at D2900. Denied. Order to show cause issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…on motions filed May 29, 2008, March 3, 2008, and October 5, 2006, and this Court affirmed those denials. See Jimenez v. State, 20 So. 3d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (table); Jimenez v. State, 990 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (table); Jimenez v. State, 959 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table). The trial court granted Jimenez’s Rule 3.800(a) motion filed January 14, 2008, on the State’s concession of error, and nunc pro tunc resentenced Jimenez accordingly. Thereafter, also based on the State’s proper concessio…
-
State v. Jimenez, 173 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…for Cuba, where that testimony was prejudicial, damaging, and irrelevant to the case; and (5) preserve sentencing errors via a Rule 3.800(b)(1) motion. The trial court entered an order denying the motion, and this Court affirmed in Jimenez v. State, 959 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table). The mandate issued on March 13, 2008. On January 14, 2008, Jimenez filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion which asserted that his sixty-year general sentence was not properly apportioned, and was therefore illegal. The State conce…
-
Jenkins v. Inch, 959 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…rt entered an order directing its clerk not to accept any further filings in Jenkins’ case unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. 1 Jenkins v. State, 959 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 985 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (denying habeas); Jenkins v. State, 17 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (denying prohibition); Jenkins v. State, 28 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 54 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (per curiam a…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Johnson v. State, 273 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Jenkins v. Inch, 959 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)