MARIO D. BALDWIN, 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 petitioner is barred from making future pro se filings in this court to challenge his judgments and sentences due to abuse of the legal process.
The petitioner sought to challenge his judgments and sentences through a petition invoking the court's all writs jurisdiction. This followed repeated …
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
By a petition to invoke the all writs jurisdiction of this court, petitioner seeks to challenge his judgments and sentences in Escambia County Circuit court case numbers 89-1557, 89-2695 and 89-2273. The petition is denied. See Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 541 (Fla.2005) (stating that the all writs provision of article V, section 3(b)(7), Florida Constitution, does not confer added appellate jurisdiction on the courts, and the court’s all writs power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction in the courts (citing St. Paul Title Ins. Co. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla.1980))).
Due to petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his convictions and sentences, this court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. 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.
Because 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 to challenge the judgments and sentences in Es-cambia County Circuit court case numbers 89-1557, 89-2695 and 89-2273. 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.
PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ardis v. Ardis, 130 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…fails to secure counsel or if no notice of appearance 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).…
-
Bolton v. SE Prop. Holdings, LLC, 127 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…eserving litigants of a speedy resolution of their dispute. Time wasted on the frivolous, meritless filings of the Boltons is time taken away from litigants and wards and estates and defendants and the State with legitimate claims. Baldwin v. State, 104 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). The Court has the inherent power to sanction such vexatious conduct, as well as to Order the pro se litigants to appear only through counsel. Slizyk v. Smilack, 734 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1999). Because the trial court’s or…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- ST. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1980)
- 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)