OLIVER THAMES, APPELLANT,
v.
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 appellate court imposed sanctions on an inmate for abuse of the appellate process, barring him from filing pro se petitions related to his 30-year-old convictions unless represented by counsel. The court found his repetitive filings frivolous and warranted restricting future access to the court.
The court imposed sanctions against Thames, directing the clerk not to accept any future filings from him related to the specified 1980 cases unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar, and referred the matter to the Department of Corrections for potential disciplinary action.
[1] A petition for writ of coram nobis may be treated as a motion for post-conviction relief if appropriate.
[2] A trial court may dismiss a post-conviction motion as untimely.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Appellant has not obtained any relief in these cases, and his current appeal is frivolous.”
Establishes the frivolous nature of Thames's repeated filings and lack of success in prior appeals.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOliver Thames, an inmate serving a 90-year sentence, filed a petition for writ of coram nobis in January 2012 challenging his convictions from several…
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 Abuse Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER BARRING FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS BY INMATE
In January 2012, Appellant filed a petition for writ of coram nobis challenging his convictions in several 1980 cases that are allegedly being used to extend his parole date in another case in which he is serving a 90-year sentence. The trial court properly treated the petition as a rule 3.850 motion and, then, dismissed it as untimely. The trial court alternatively found Appellant’s claim to be without merit and attached to its order the records conclusively *1191refuting the claim. Appellant timely appealed to this court.
We per curiam affirmed the trial court’s order on June 21, 2012. On that same date, we issued an order stating:
This court’s records reflect that, in addition to this case, Appellant has filed at least 16 petitions and appeals in this court related to his 1980 criminal cases (Escambia County Case Nos. 80-3901, 80-3957, 80-4039, and 80-4056): AY-188, 1D92-4120, 1D93-2491, 1D95-581, 1D95-2272, 1D98-3690, 1D99-1171, 1D99-3230, 1D00-3647, 1D00-4115, 1D00-4151, 1D01-2512, 1D02-2053, 1D03^545, 1D06-6624, and 1D08-853. Appellant has not obtained any relief in these cases, and his current appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, pursuant to rule 9.410(a) and State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), Appellant shall show cause within 21 days of the date of this order why sanctions should not be imposed on him, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this court related to his 1980 cases and a referral of this matter to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action under section 944.279, Florida Statutes.
Appellant is advised that the failure to comply with the terms of this order within the time allowed may result in the imposition of sanctions without further opportunity to be heard. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410.
Appellant filed a response to the order. Other than pointing out that this court reversed the summary denial of his post-conviction motions and remanded for further proceedings in two of the cases listed in the order (the most recent of which was 12 years ago),* the response fails to show cause why Appellant should not be sanctioned. Having carefully considered the response, we conclude that sanctions against Appellant are warranted based on his continued abuse of the appellate process through his repetitive and frivolous pro se filings related to his 30-year-old convictions. Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this court not to accept any future filings from Appellant, Oliver Thames (Inmate No. 203377), related to Escambia County Case Nos. 80-3901, 80-3957, 80-4039, and 80-4056, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. We also direct the Clerk to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections for potential disciplinary action under section 944.279, Florida Statutes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THOMAS, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Percival Charles Ferris, Jr. v. State, 100 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (five cases); Baker v. State, 939 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (four cases). However, this court has also tolerated more cases than Appellant has filed before prohibiting further pro se filings. See, e.g., Thames v. State, 93 So. 3d 1190, 2012 WL 3194117 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug.8, 2012) (at least 16 cases); Cooper v. State, 89 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (13 cases related to one conviction and at least 13 related to another); Richardson v. State, 70 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (13 c…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Wright v. State, 911 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2005)
- Thames v. State, 454 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Vangunda v. State, 769 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)