WESLEY A. HOSTZCLAW, 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.
A prisoner filed a fraudulent motion misrepresenting himself as the Public Defender to obtain counsel, and the court imposed sanctions under Florida Statute 944.279(1) for knowingly bringing false information before the court. The court also ordered the prisoner to show cause why his pro se filings should not be permanently rejected.
Sanctions should be imposed under section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, because Hostzclaw knowingly or recklessly brought false information before the court by misrepresenting himself as the Public Defender. The court also issued an order requiring Hostzclaw to show cause why it should not refuse to accept his pro se filings in perpetuity.
[1] A court may impose sanctions on a prisoner who knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth brings false information or evidence before the court.
[2] A motion filed by a prisoner purporting to be from a public defender, but not authorized by that attorney and containing the prisoner's handwriting and misstatements of l…
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“Unless a credible threat of sanctions exists, postconviction movants have little incentive against saying whatever they choose in postconviction proceedings, regardless of truth.”
Establishes the court's rationale for imposing sanctions to deter frivolous filings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWesley Hostzclaw, a prisoner serving 170 years for drug offenses, filed a motion in the Fourth District Court of Appeal purportedly from the Fifteenth…
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 Attorney Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
This court has already dismissed, as legally insufficient and unauthorized, the underlying pro se “motion to conduct full inquiry into alleged bad faith filings,” filed by petitioner Wesley A. Hostzclaw,1 which this court designated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.2 We now impose sanctions on Hostzclaw.
On July 12, 2010, while the petition was pending, a typed “motion by public defender’s office for appointment to be counsel on behalf of Defendant Wesley A. Hostzclaw on above styled cases and motions for postconviction relief now pending before this court initially filed pro se by Defendant” was filed in this court, purportedly by Fifteenth Circuit Public Defender Car*820ey Haughwout (Haughwout). However, the motion arrived in an envelope bearing Hostzclaw’s return address, portions of it appeared to contain his handwriting, and its typographical errors and misstatements of law appeared to be consistent with Ho-stzclaw’s own customary filings.
This court directed Haughwout to advise this court whether she authorized the filing of the July 12, 2010 motion. On July 30, 2010, she confirmed she did not authorize this filing. Accordingly, this court struck the motion as unauthorized and fraudulent.
On August 2, 2010, Defendant filed a response to this court’s July 21, 2010 order to Haughwout, in which he claimed to have sent this court the July 12 motion as “proposed motion” to appoint the public defender to his cases. He asserts that he has a right to propose motions to this court, and there was nothing fraudulent about it because he did not sign the motion, nor did he forge Haughwout’s signature on it. If, however, he committed a fraudulent act, then he asked to be charged with a crime and given his day in court. To that end, he claimed to be forwarding copies of his “proposed” motion to various law enforcement agencies, and he suggested that if he were criminally charged, then the criminal acts of the state attorney, several trial court judges, and the clerk of the Florida Supreme Court also should be considered.
Despite Hostzclaw’s response, this court issued an order directing him to show cause,3 within twenty days (a period that expired on September 20, 2010), why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2009) (allowing court to recommend disciplinary procedures for prisoner who has “knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth brought false information or evidence before the court”) (emphasis added), because, in filing the July 12 motion, he misrepresented himself as the Public Defender for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, thereby knowingly or recklessly bringing false information before the court. No response to the order was filed by September 20, or even by the end of October.4
We conclude that sanctions should be imposed. Although Hostzclaw claims he sent this court the July 12 motion as “proposed motion” to appoint the public defender to his cases, and neither signed the motion nor forged Haughwout’s signature on it, he did represent himself to be the public defender herself.5 See, e.g., Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“Unless a credible threat of sanctions exists, postconviction movants *821have little incentive against saying whatever they choose in postconviction proceedings, regardless of truth.”).
Accordingly, we direct that a certified copy of this opinion be forwarded to Union Correctional Institution for the consideration of disciplinary procedures pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2010), because Hostzclaw “knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth brought false information or evidence before the court.”
Simultaneously with this opinion, we are issuing an order directing Wesley Ho-stzclaw to show cause why this court should not henceforth refuse to accept his pro se filings in perpetuity. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Matter Referred to Correctional Facility for Consideration of Sanctions.
GROSS, C.J., FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Oquendo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Ibarra v. State, 45 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Spencer v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 823 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2002)
- McDANIEL v. State, 620 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Hostzclaw v. State, 620 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)