ERNESTO J. HOLMES, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Holmes petitioned for habeas corpus relief alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Florida District Court of Appeal denied the petition and barred Holmes from filing further pro se pleadings regarding his 1989 conviction, finding he had abused the judicial system through successive and repetitious filings.
The court denied the petition because the issues raised had been previously addressed and rejected in prior post-conviction proceedings. The court further barred Holmes from filing any further pro se pleadings regarding his 1989 conviction, finding he had abused the judicial system through successive repetitious filings.
[1] A petition for habeas corpus relief may be denied when the issues raised have been previously addressed and rejected in prior post-conviction proceedings.
[2] Courts may deny a litigant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in further extraordinary relief proceedings when the litigant has abused the system through successive and r…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The goal of fairly dispensing justice ... is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests.”
Establishes the rationale for restricting pro se filings that abuse judicial resources
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolmes was convicted in 1989 of sexual battery by force and sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty years in prison. This is Holmes's fifth habeas …
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Ernesto Holmes (defendant) has filed a petition seeking habeas corpus relief, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.1 We deny the petition.
The petition before us is the defendant’s fifth petition for writ of habeas corpus and his eleventh post-conviction proceeding. In this regard, the defendant has filed a direct appeal, three motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, two motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and four prior petitions for writ of habeas corpus. The defendant has not prevailed in any of his post-conviction proceedings. We deny the instant petition because the issues raised therein have been previously addressed and rejected in the defendant’s prior post-conviction proceedings. See Mills v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1993).
Furthermore, the record before us clearly indicates that our mere denial of this petition will not bring an end to the defendant’s repetitive pro se post-conviction filings. As a result, we have decided to adopt the ruling in In re Anderson, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1606, 128 L.Ed.2d 332, reconsideration denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2671, 129 L.Ed.2d 807 (1994), wherein the Supreme Court, when faced with the frustration of a defendant’s successive and repetitious pro se filings, barred the defendant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in any further extraordinary relief proceedings. In so ruling, the Anderson Court cited to the reasoning set forth in In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed.2d 599, reh’g denied 498 U.S. 1116, 111 S.Ct. 1029, 112 L.Ed.2d 1110 (1991): The goal of fairly dispensing justice ... is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. Pro se petitioners have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not subject to the financial considerations— filing fees and attorney’s fees — that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions. The risks of abuse are particularly acute with respect to applications for extraordinary relief, since such petitions are not subject to any time limitations and, theoretically, could be filed at any time without limitation. In order to prevent frivolous petitions for extraordinary relief from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court has a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to those individuals who have abused the system.
Sindram, 498. U.S. at 179-180, 111 S.Ct. at 597.
Here, the defendant has disrupted the fair allocation of judicial resources of this court by filing successive pro se post-conviction petitions challenging his 1989 conviction and sentence. This activity now rises to the level of being an abuse of process. Accordingly, we prohibit the defendant from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings regarding his 1989 conviction and sentence. See Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
WRIT DENIED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . In 1989, the defendant was convicted of committing a sexual battery by use of force and sentenced as an habitual offender to a term of thirty years in prison.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…980 convictions and sentences. AFFIRMED. PETERSON, C.J., and HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Harris v. State, 674 So. 2d 925, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (identical petition for habeas coipus denied as abuse of process); Holmes v. State, 669 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ("to prevent frivolous petitions for extraordinary relief from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court has a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to individuals who have abused the system”); Lockett v. Stat…
-
Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…appellant had filed nine proceedings in the District Court which were repetitive and untimely. Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In another case, the petitioner was bringing his eleventh postconviction proceeding. Holmes v. State, 669 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). As a result of these cases and others2, the Fifth District decided to adopt the ruling in In re Anderson, 511 U.S. 364, 114 S.Ct. 1606, 128 L.Ed.2d 332, reconsideration denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2671, 129 L.Ed.2d 807 (1994), w…
-
Darrin McGILLIS v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 738 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ty from filing further proceedings.”), approved, 709 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1998); Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.1995); Huffman v. State, 693 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Holmes v. State, 669 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1991)
- Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- In re Anderson, 511 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1994)
- Daly v. United States, 498 U.S. 1116 (U.S. 1991)
- Mills v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1993)