ANTHONY MARTIN, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied Anthony Martin's pro se petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the trial judge's denial of his motion to recuse. The court clarified that prior sanctions against Martin's pro se filings in civil cases do not extend to criminal proceedings, but found the recusal motion facially insufficient.
The court held that prior sanctions limiting Martin's pro se filings apply only to civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings. However, the petition for writ of prohibition was facially insufficient because it merely alleged adverse rulings, which is not a proper basis for recusal. Any challenge to the erroneous nature of the rulings may be raised on direct appeal.
[1] A prior sanction imposed against an indigent litigant for filing pro se petitions in civil cases does not automatically extend to petitions filed in criminal cases.
[2] A litigant may be sanctioned in criminal proceedings if they become an abusive burden to the court, impacting the rights of other litigants.
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“we have not applied it to a petition from a criminal proceeding”
Establishes that the prior Marko sanction was limited to civil cases and did not previously apply to criminal proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of prohibition challenging the denial of his motion to recuse the trial judge. The motion to recu…
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 Sanctions For Abusive Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After originally rejecting this pro se petition for writ of prohibition based upon our sanction imposed against petitioner’s filing of pro se petitions as an indigent, see Martin v. Marko, 651 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we have reconsidered whether the opinion in that case extends to petitions filed in criminal cases. To date, we have not applied it to a petition from a criminal proceeding. We also note that the supreme court has similarly sanctioned petitioner in Martin v. State, 747 So. 2d 386 (Fla.2000), by denying him indigency status for filing of petitions for extraordinary relief. However, its opinion, like Marko, arose from a civil proceeding, and the sanction the court imposed covered civil actions in its court, not actions arising out of direct criminal proceedings. We likewise limit Marko to civil proceedings at this time.
That is not to say that a litigant could not be sanctioned even in criminal proceedings should that litigant be an abusive burden to a court, such that the rights of other litigants may be impacted. Indeed, in another case, the supreme court has indicated that sanctions, even in criminal cases, may, in appropriate circumstances, be warranted. See Jackson v. Dep’t of Corrs., 26 Fla. L. Weekly S169, — So. 2d -, 2001 WL 252147 (Fla. Mar. 15, 2001).
Petitioner advises the court that the public defender has been appointed to represent him. Generally, that appointment will preclude petitioner from filing his own petitions since he was represented by counsel. See Gilbert v. Singletary, 632 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Because this case was brought to this court prior to appointment of counsel, we consider it on its merits.
The petition for writ of prohibition is directed to the denial of a motion to recuse the trial judge. The motion is facially insufficient as it alleges only that the judge should be recused because of rulings adverse to the petitioner. See Barwick v. State, 660 So. 2d 685, 692 (Fla.1995). To the extent that petitioner is claiming that the rulings are erroneous, that issue may be raised on appeal from that order. The petition is denied.
WARNER, C.J., POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark Leichty v. Clerk OF Cir. Court, 948 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…It is the trial court that has jurisdiction over such matters. See Tucker v. Ruvin, 748 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that where clerk refused to file legal document, circuit court should have granted mandamus); see also Martin v. Krischer, 783 So. 2d 1170, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Green v. State, 698 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Taylor v. State, 677 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). PETITION FOR MANDAMUS DENIED. GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Barwick v. State, 660 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1995)
- Martin v. State, 747 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2000)
- Elisha Gilbert v. Singletary, 632 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Martin v. Honorable Paul Marko, 651 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)