ULYSSES BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Ulysses Brown appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, his sixteenth action in this court. The court affirmed the denial and imposed sanctions by ordering the clerk to reject future pro se filings from Brown related to his convictions unless signed by a Florida Bar attorney, finding the appeal frivolous and an abuse of the judicial process.
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that it was properly denied because Brown's convictions are lawful and his judgments and sentences remain valid. The court imposed sanctions prohibiting Brown from filing future pro se documents related to his convictions unless signed by a Florida Bar member, finding the appeal frivolous and an abuse of the judicial process.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is frivolous and lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when the petitioner is lawfully detained under judgments and sentences.
[2] The writ of habeas corpus is available only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a petitioner is detained without lawful authority.
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 writ of habeas corpus is available only if the petitioner shows probable cause to believe that he or she is detained without lawful authority.”
Establishes the legal standard for habeas corpus relief that Brown failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was convicted and sentenced in 1983 in two criminal cases in Duval County. His judgments and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in 1984. B…
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 Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Ulysses Brown, challenges the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because this is Appellant’s sixteenth action in this court, we ordered him to show cause why this court should not summarily affirm the order on review, under rule 9.315, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; why Appellant should not be sanctioned pursuant to rule 9.410, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure for filing a frivolous appeal; and why such sanctions should not include a direction to the Clerk of this Court to reject any future filings Appellant submits to this Court relating to his convictions and sentences. Appellant responded by requesting that this appeal be voluntarily dismissed.
“A reviewing court has discretion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with the appeal even where a notice of voluntary dismissal is timely filed.” Washington v. State, 982 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see also, State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1995). In this case, we decline to dismiss the appeal.
This appeal is frivolous because it has no arguable basis in law or fact. See *743§ 57.085(9)(a), Fla. Stat. Appellant’s argument that the trial court erroneously failed to consider his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” as a motion for post-conviction relief is without merit. The writ of habeas corpus is available only if the petitioner shows probable cause to believe that he or she is detained without lawful authority. § 79.01, Fla. Stat. Appellant is currently detained by the Florida Department of Corrections under the lawful authority of two judgments and sentences. State v. Brown, Case No. 82-6820-CF (4th Cir., Duval Co. Fla.); State v. Brown, Case No. 82-6845—CF (4th Cir., Duval Co. Fla.).
When a motion for post-conviction relief would be untimely, dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate disposition. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004). Appellant’s judgments and sentences were entered in 1983, and except for the minimum mandatory provisions, affirmed on direct appeal in 1984. Brovin v. State, 447 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The 2-year limitation imposed by rule 3.850(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure would thus have expired, with only limited exceptions, over twenty years ago.
Appellant’s response did not show cause why this court should not limit his ability to file pro se actions and papers in this court. Considering Appellant’s incessant initiation of proceedings in this court, and finding this appeal frivolous, we find that Appellant has abused the judicial process and hindered the ability of this Court to devote its resources to the timely consideration of genuine disputes and color-able claims by those who have not abused the system. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008).
The order on appeal is AFFIRMED. In addition, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Ulysses Brown, DC# 089244, that are related to his convictions and sentences in Case No. 1982 CF 06820 and 1982 CF 06845, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. If Mr. Brown violates this order, he may be subject to further appropriate sanctions. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS and CLARK, JJ., and BROWNING, JR., EDWIN B., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caiazzo v. Am. Royal Arts Corp., 73 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., 734 So. 2d 403, 404 n. 1 (Fla.1999) (“As we have done in the [*249] past, we exercise our discretion to retain jurisdiction in this case because we consider this issue to be of great public importance.”); Brown v. McNeil, 22 So. 3d 741, 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (declining to dismiss an appeal after a voluntary dismissal); Washington v. State, 982 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“A reviewing court has discretion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with the appeal even where a…
-
Robenson v. McNEIL, 39 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…al process and hindered the ability of this court to devote its resources to the timely consideration of genuine disputes and colorable claims by those who have not abused the system. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla.2008); Brown v. McNeil, 22 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Franklin v. State, 25 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The order on appeal is AFFIRMED. In addition, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future [*352] pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other fil…
-
Franklin v. State, 25 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…l process and hindered the ability of this Court to devote its resources to the timely consideration of genuine disputes and color-able claims by those who have not abused the system. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla.2008); Brown v. McNeil, 22 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is DENIED. In addition, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Leon Frankl…
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
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Ulysses Brown v. State, 447 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Washington v. State, 982 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)