ROBERT HINSON, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal imposed sanctions against Robert Hinson, a serial litigant, prohibiting him from appearing pro se in the court based on his pattern of frivolous filings that substantially interfered with judicial administration. Hinson had filed 58 cases since 1995, approximately half seeking extraordinary writs, none successful, and most presenting procedurally barred or clearly meritless claims.
The court imposed sanctions prohibiting Robert Hinson from appearing as a litigant in any proceeding before the court unless represented by counsel. Hinson was required to secure counsel within 30 days in any pending cases, failing which such proceedings would be subject to dismissal. The clerk was directed to reject all future pro se filings from Hinson.
[1] A criminal statute is not rendered invalid solely by the absence of an enacting clause.
[2] A litigant's repeated filing of frivolous or meritless claims can constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
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“Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., has appeared as appellant or petitioner in this court 58 times since 1995. Approximately one half of those cases involved pro se petitions seeking extraordinary writ relief, none of which have resulted in the granting of any substantive relief, and the bulk of which presented claims that were procedurally barred or clearly meritless.”
Establishes the pattern of frivolous litigation that justified the sanctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Lee Hinson, Jr. filed a petition for writ of prohibition challenging the validity of a criminal statute on the ground that it lacked an enactin…
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 Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., filed a petition for writ of prohibition with this court presenting the argument that the criminal statute under which he was evidently convicted was invalid because it failed to contain an enacting clause. This claim is clearly frivolous. See McCutcheon v. State, 44 So.3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Brown v. State, 10 So.3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). More significantly, however, this is but the latest of many attempts by Hinson to secure relief based on clearly meritless legal theories. Following a review of the court’s records of Hinson’s prior filings, we issued the following order:
The records of this court reflect that Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., has appeared as appellant or petitioner in this court 58 times since 1995. Approximately one half of those cases involved pro se petitions seeking extraordinary writ relief, none of which have resulted in the granting of any substantive relief, and the bulk of which presented claims that were procedurally barred or clearly meritless. The court thus finds that Hinson’s pro se litigation has substantially interfered with the effective and efficient administration of justice by the court. Accordingly, Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., shall show cause within 10 days of the date' of this order why sanctions, including a prohibition against appearing as a litigant in this court unless represented by counsel, should hot be imposed against him. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410.
Having considered Hinson’s response, we conclude that he has failed to establish good cause to avoid the imposition of a sanction we deem necessary to prevent his continued abuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., is hereby prohibited from appearing as a- litigant in any proceeding before this court unless represented by counsel. In any pending cases, petitioner shall secure the appearance of counsel on his behalf within 30 days, failing which such proceeding shall be subject to dismissal without further opportunity to be heard. The clerk of this court is directed to accept no further pro se filings from Hinson. If received, they shall be returned to him without filing and with a reference to this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 242 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Mosely v. State, 688 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Desmond v. State, 576 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Budd v. State, 477 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hinson v. State, 57 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Brown v. State, 10 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Foss v. State, 834 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McMillan - 2 - v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v.…
-
Baker v. State, 139 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…[*447] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 974 So. 2d 363 (Fla.2008); Harris v. State, 818 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hinson v. State, 57 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Brown v. State, 10 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). DAVIS, C.J., and CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.…
-
Frates v. State, 145 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bizzell v. State, 912 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Hinson v. State, 57 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. [*932] 4th DCA 2010); Brown v. State, 10 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). KELLY, VILLANTI, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Brown v. State, 10 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)