WILLIAM STEWART STEELE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
William Stewart Steele appeals the denial of his tenth habeas corpus petition challenging his 1991 first-degree murder conviction and life sentence. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding Steele's successive petitions constitute an abuse of the judicial system and prohibited him from filing further pro se pleadings without attorney sponsorship.
The court affirmed the denial of Steele's petition, finding it successive and without merit. The court prohibited Steele from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, and petitions relating to his conviction and sentence, requiring that any future filings must be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant from filing future pleadings if the court first provides notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] Repeatedly filing successive and meritless petitions constitutes an abuse of the judicial system.
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“Steele was convicted of first degree murder and received a life sentence in 1991. He appealed and this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in Steele v. State, 609 So.2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Steele then began attacking his conviction and sentence collaterally.”
Establishes the procedural history and the pattern of successive collateral attacks
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteele was convicted of first degree murder in 1991 and received a life sentence. His direct appeal was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal…
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 Abuse Of Judicial System cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Stewart Steele appeals from an order denying his tenth challenge to his 1991 conviction for first degree murder and his life sentence. We find his petition for habeas corpus that was denied by the trial court to be successive, and that “enough is enough.” Steele was convicted of first degree murder and received a life sentence in 1991. He appealed and this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in Steele v. State, 609 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Steele then began attacking his conviction and sentence collaterally.1
We concluded that Steele’s current appeal was without merit and issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (holding that court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond).
We find no merit in Steele’s response and hold that his successive petitions constitute an abuse of the judicial system. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Therefore, in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, and in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Steele from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions relating to his conviction and sentence in his case and affirmed by this court in Steele v. State, 609 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Any further pleadings filed in this court relating to his judgment and sentence must be reviewed and signed by an attorney, licensed to practice law in this state. The clerk of the court of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se filings or pleadings from Steele regarding Ninth Judicial Circuit Court No. 1990-CF-5038.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., PETERSON, TORPY, JJ„ concur. . See Steele v. State, 654 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (Case No. 5D95-472), all writ jurisdiction. denied, Steele v. Dauksch, 662 So. 2d 343 (Fla.1995) (Case No. SC86,060); Steele v. State, (Case No. 5D95-1469); Steele v. State, 671 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(Case No. 5D96-451); Steele v. State, (Case No. 5D96-583); Steele v. Kehoe, 724 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(Case No. 5D96-2212), approved by 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1999) (Case No. SC92,950); Steele v. State, (Case No. 5D98-308); Steele v. State, (Case No. 5D00-2268); Steele v. State, 809 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), rev. denied, 829 So. 2d 919 (Fla.2002).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wood v. State, 867 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…o show cause within 30 days from the date of this opinion why he should not be precluded from filing any further pro se pleadings raising these issues in this criminal case. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). See, e.g., Steele v. State, 859 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). AFFIRMED. SHOW CAUSE ISSUED. GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur. . See Wood v. State, 761 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Wood v. State, 650 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…
-
Borinstein v. State, 893 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…reviously filed a similar habeas petition in the 19th Judicial Circuit, which was denied on January 9, 2004, on the merits. AFFIRMED. MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur. . Borinstein v. State, 613 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). . See Steele v. State, 859 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Davis v. State, 705 ■ So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).…
-
Schiming v. State, 890 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ure pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond). We find no merit in Schiming’s response and hold that his successive petitions constitute an abuse of the judicial system. See, e.g., Steele v. State, 859 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Therefore, in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act o…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1999)
- Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Dixon v. Singletary, 724 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Harvey v. State, 836 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Steele v. State, 809 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)