BEAUFORD WHITE, A/K/A BEAUFORD HAWKINS, A/K/A BEULFORD HAWKINS, A/K/A BEULFORD WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause against Beauford White, a serial pro se litigant, prohibiting him from filing further pro se pleadings relating to his 1991 burglary and grand theft conviction after he had filed twelve pro se motions for post-conviction relief. The court accepted White's stipulation not to file further pro se pleadings and declined to impose monetary sanctions despite finding such sanctions permissible.
The court prohibited White from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his 1991 conviction and sentence, requiring that all future filings must be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney. The court declined to impose monetary sanctions despite finding them permissible, based on White's stipulation to cease his vexatious filing practices.
[1] A court may prohibit a party from filing further pro se proceedings concerning a specific conviction and sentence upon the party's stipulation not to file such pleadings.
[2] A court may, in its discretion, choose not to sanction a party for vexatious filings when the party avers they will cease such practices.
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 ordered him to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se proceedings with this court concerning his October 26, 1991 conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft”
Establishes the basis for the order to show cause against the vexatious litigant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeauford White was convicted on October 26, 1991 of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. Over approximately fifteen years, White filed …
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 Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On July 12, 2006, in conjunction with our per curiam affirmance of Appellant Beau-ford White’s1 twelfth pro se motion for post conviction relief,2 we ordered him to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se proceedings with this court concerning his October 26, 1991 conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft in trial court case number F91-38136. See Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Defendant stipulates that he will not file any further pro se pleadings regarding case number F91-38136. Upon this stipulation, we now prohibit him from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to this conviction and sentence.
We also ordered defendant to show cause why we should not sanction him pursuant to section 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005) and section 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2005). Defendant avers that he is one year removed from release and was unaware of the frivolous nature of his filings. While we believe that a sanction in this case would be permissible, see Pettis v. State, 931 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), we choose, in our discretion, not to employ this measure here where defendant avers that he will cease his vexatious practice.
For the foregoing reasons, we order that henceforth any pleadings or papers filed in this court relating to case number F91-38136 must be reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in this state, and the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se pleadings from defendant relating to said case.
So ordered.
. Defendant also uses the monikers "Beau-ford Hawkins”, "Beulford Hawkins", and "Beulford White”.
. See White v. State, 860 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(table); White v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); White v. State, 783 So. 2d 267, 2001 WL 335882 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 21, 2001)(table); White v. Moore, 751 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(table); White v. State, 743 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(table); White v. State, 693 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(table); White v. State, 678 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(table); White v. Sin-gletary, 668 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(table); White v. State, 657 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(table); White v. Singletary, 642 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(table); White v. State, 638 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(table). Defendant also filed an appeal in case number 98-2625, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal prior to our ruling. White v. State, 727 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Along the way, defendant also filed a petition for habeas relief directly to the Florida Supreme Court, White v. State, 675 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1996), and two federal habeas petitions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Espinosa v. State, 263 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Nickolas J. White v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Elisarmes Harris v. State, 827 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- White v. Singletary, 663 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 1995)
- Pettis v. State, 931 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)