LOUIS ROBENSON, 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.
Louis Robenson, an inmate serving a life sentence, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition seeking deportation to Haiti rather than continued detention. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, finding the petition legally frivolous and imposing sanctions prohibiting Robenson from filing future pro se documents in the court without bar representation.
The court affirmed the dismissal because habeas corpus relief is available only for unlawful detention, not to obtain deportation as an alternative to serving a lawful sentence. Robenson's appeal is frivolous because it has no arguable basis in law or fact. The court imposed sanctions prohibiting future pro se filings by Robenson without bar representation.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus is not an appropriate vehicle to seek deportation prior to the expiration of a sentence being served.
[2] The writ of habeas corpus is available only when a petitioner demonstrates probable cause to believe they are 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 in Florida and why Robenson's petition fails.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobenson is detained by the Florida Department of Corrections under lawful authority of several sentences, including a life sentence imposed in State …
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, Louis Robenson, challenges the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the circuit court in the county in which he is detained. This is the sixteenth appellate action initiated by Appellant in this court, and was followed immediately by two more pro se appeals. In light of Appellant’s active litigation record in this and other courts of this state, this court ordered him to show cause why the trial court’s order court should not be summarily affirmed, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315; why Appellant should not be sanctioned pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 for filing a frivolous appeal; and why such sanctions should not include a direction to the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pro se filings from Appellant. Appellant responded by informing this court that such disposition of this appeal would give him no choice but to “take the Laws into his own hands.”
Appellant failed to show cause why this court should not summarily affirm the order on appeal pursuant to rule 9.815. The trial court correctly dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the relief sought was not immediate release from unlawful detention, but immediate deportation to Haiti. 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 several sentences, including the life sentence imposed in State v. Robenson, Case No. 94-01770-CF (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct., Lake Cty.).
Appellant likewise has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal under rule 9.410. This appeal has no arguable basis in law or fact. See § 57.085(9)(a), Fla. Stat. The trial court committed no error in dismissing the petition. Under no circumstances is a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Florida state court an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner to seek deportation prior to the expiration of the sentence being served.
Finally, Appellant has failed to show cause why the sanctions for filing this frivolous appeal should not include a direction to the Clerk of this Court to reject any future documents submitted to this Court by Appellant without representation of counsel in good standing with the Florida Bar. Considering Appellant’s unrelenting stream of filings in this court and others, 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 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 *352pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Louis Roben-son, DC# 308214, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. If Mr. Robenson violates this order, he may be subject to further appropriate sanctions. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.
It is so ordered.
BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Crews, 120 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…r filing a frivolous appeal; and why such sanctions should not include a direction to the Clerk of this Court to reject any future filings submitted by Appellant unless Appellant is represented by a member of the Florida Bar. See Robenson v. McNeil, 39 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Walker v. Ellis, 28 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). No response has been filed. Appellant has failed to show cause why this court should not summarily affirm the order on appeal pursuant to Rule 9.315, Florida Rules of Appellate…
-
Smith v. Rutherford, 162 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ls filed in this court has resulted in meaningful relief but all have required this court to devote its limited resources to processing and evaluating Appellant’s meritless claims. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla.2008); Robenson v. McNeil, 39 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Walter N. Smith, DC #J04026, unless signed by a member in good standing of…
-
Alphonsia Canty v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…We affirm the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus because Appellant has failed to provide evidence that he is entitled to immediate release. See Robenson v. McNeil, 39 So. 3d 350, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“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.”). However, Appellant has presented evidence that the sentencing court inte…
Authorities Cited
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Ulysses Brown v. McNEIL, 22 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Franklin v. State, 25 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)