ANTHONY W. BROOM, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH S. TUCKER, ETC., 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 court held that the inmate's pro se habeas corpus petition was unauthorized and frivolous, warranting sanctions.
[1] A pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus is unauthorized when it challenges a conviction and sentence that have been fully litigated and affirmed by the appropriate co…
[2] A court may prohibit a prisoner from filing further pro se pleadings related to a specific case number if the prisoner fails to show cause why such prohibition should not…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn inmate filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and sentence, which had been affirmed on direct appeal and litigated throug…
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 Pro Se Litigant Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthony W. Broom, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court challenging his conviction and sentence.1 We dismissed the petition in this case by way of an unpublished order, determining that it was unauthorized pursuant to Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).2 In disposing of the petition in this case, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Broom.3 See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a).
Broom was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for committing second-degree murder in Polk County, Florida (Case No. CF81-1860-A1XX). Broom appealed his conviction and sentence to the Second District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of guilt and the sentence imposed. Broom v. State, 422 So.2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (table decision)! Since his criminal case became final Broom has filed numerous postconviction cases, to no avail.4 It is patently evident from the record before this Court that Broom’s criminal case has been fully litigated in the appropriate courts below, to no avail for him.
Since 1988, Petitioner has filed multiple extraordinary writ petitions with this Court seeking relief from the results of his criminal case. And in none of the petitions Broom filed in this Court has any relief been granted to him.5 Because the petition filed in this case was dismissed as unauthorized and was also his seventh extraordinary writ petition pertaining to his criminal case, we issued an order directing *504Broom to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se filings in this Court related to case number CF81-1860-A1XX.6 However, Broom chose not to file a response to our order. By disregarding our order to show cause, Broom has left us to conclude that his unauthorized petition is a frivolous proceeding brought to this Court by a prisoner. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2011). We take notice that Broom has compiled a history of pro se filings in this Court that, like the instant habeas corpus petition, were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review in this Court.
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Anthony W. Broom that are related to case number CF81-1860-A1XX, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Broom’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.7 Furthermore, since we have found Broom’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2011), to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where Broom is incarcerated.8
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hannon v. State, 228 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 2017)…but it denied relief. Hannon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr. (Hannon V), 562 F. 3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2009).1 [*508] The postconviction court denied Han-non’s first successive motion for postcon-viction relief, which we affirmed. Hannon v. State (Hannon VI), 94 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 2012). Again, the postconviction court denied Hannon’s second motion, for postcon-viction relief, and we affirmed. Hannon v. State (Hannon VII), SC15-2363, 2016 WL 3352780 (Fla. June 16, 2016). Hannon filed his third successive motion for pos…
-
Cafaro v. Est. OF Diane Wyllins, 164 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…DCA 2009), Ralph Cafaro is, as of the date this opinion becomes final, prohibited from initiating any civil appeals or original proceedings in this court unless they are submitted by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Broom v. Tucker, 94 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla.2012). The clerk of this court is directed to deposit any submissions from Mr. Cafaro that may otherwise qualify to be treated as civil appeals or original proceedings in an inactive file that shall receive no judicial consideration. App…
-
Margetta Langlois v. G.R.P. Loans, 106 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…State, 16 So. 3d 875, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Accordingly, Margetta Langlois is prohibited from initiating any civil appeals or original proceedings in this court unless submitted by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Broom v. Tucker, 94 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla.2012). The clerk of this court is directed to deposit any submissions from her that may otherwise qualify to be treated as civil appeals or original proceedings in an inactive file that shall receive no judicial attention. Ms. Langlois is…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
- Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 2011)
- James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011)
- Tate v. McNEIL, 983 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2008)
- Diamond v. State, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Wellman v. Wellman, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)