TYRONE DEWAYNE WILLIAMS, 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 District Court of Appeal dismissed a petition invoking the all writs jurisdiction to challenge a 2002 conviction and sentence, holding that the all writs provision does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction. The court also imposed sanctions barring the petitioner from future pro se filings in the trial court case due to abuse of process through repeated unsuccessful attacks on the same judgment.
The court has no jurisdiction to invoke the all writs provision because the all writs authority is ancillary and operates only in aid of ultimate jurisdiction conferred elsewhere in the constitution, not as an independent source of jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and sanctions are imposed barring Williams from future pro se filings concerning the case.
[1] The "all writs" provision of the Florida Constitution does not constitute a separate source of original or appellate jurisdiction, but rather operates as an aid to a cour…
[2] A court's "all writs" power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction.
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“This "all writs" provision does not, however, constitute a separate source of original or appellate jurisdiction. Rather, it operates as an aid to the court in exercising its "ultimate jurisdiction," conferred elsewhere in the constitution.”
Establishes that the all writs provision is ancillary and not an independent jurisdictional basis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTyrone Dewayne Williams petitioned to invoke all writs jurisdiction to challenge a 2002 judgment and sentence. Williams had previously sought relief i…
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 All Writs Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction challenges a 2002 judgment and sentence. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and elect to impose sanctions against petitioner.
Article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution authorizes district courts of appeal to issue “other writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.” This “all writs” provision does not, however, constitute a separate source of original or appellate jurisdiction. Rather, it operates as an aid to the court in exercising its “ultimate jurisdiction,” conferred elsewhere in the constitution. These “constitutional writs” are ancillary in that they are used to preserve the power of the court to fully and effectively decide cases that have been, or will be, presented on independent jurisdictional grounds. As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Florida Senate v. Graham, 412 So.2d 360, 361 (Fla.1982), “we have the jurisdiction conferred by [the Constitution], to issue all writs necessary to the complete exercise and in aid of the ultimate jurisdiction imposed [elsewhere in the constitution”]. See also St. Paul Title Ins. Co. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla.1980) (“The all writs provision ... does not confer added appellate jurisdiction on this Court, and this Court’s all writs power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction .... ”).
Petitioner has unsuccessfully sought relief in five other cases which challenged his 2002 judgment and sentence. Due to petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence, this court directed petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (requiring that courts “first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence.”). Petitioner’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.
The petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner has failed to cite an independent basis that would allow this court to exercise its all writs authority and no such basis is apparent on the face of the petition. See Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 541, 543-44 (Fla.2005). In addition, *670because petitioner’s continued and repeated attacks on his conviction and sentences have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this court concerning Escambia County Circuit Court case number 2001-CF-005203. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Petitioner is warned that any filings which violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410.
PETITION DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ardis v. Ardis, 130 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…of counsel is filed within thirty days, the Clerk is directed to dismiss the case. PETITION DENIED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED. PADOVANO, ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. . See e.g., Baldwin v. State, 104 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Williams v. State, 102 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Ward v. State, 75 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Obojes v. State, 946 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). . Van Zant v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 94 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). . Pflaum v. Pflaum, 974 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…
-
Percival Charles Ferris, Jr. v. State, 100 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…s per curiam affirmed by this court in Ferris v. State, 38 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (table). . I say "might” because this court has barred further pro se filings from prisoners who had fewer cases than Appellant. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 102 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (five cases); Neal v. State, 65 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (six cases); Cash v. State, 50 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (nine cases); Obojes v. State, 946 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (five cases); Baker v. State, 939 So. 2…
-
Bryan v. Governor Ron DeSantis (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…ed elsewhere in the constitution. These “constitutional writs” are ancillary in that they are used to preserve the power of the court to fully and effectively decide cases that have been, or will be, presented on independent jurisdictional grounds. 102 So. 3d 669, 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); see also Cash v. Smith, 465 So. 2d 1294, 1295–96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (denying relief under the “other writs” or “all writs” power because the petition was “not sought to protect existing jurisdiction of the court”). Because…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- ST. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1980)
- The Fla. Senate v. The Honorable D. Robert Graham, 412 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1982)
- Int'l Paper Co. v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 913 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2005)
- Williams v. State, 913 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2005)