DONALD WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL D. CREWS, ETC., RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2014-04-03
No. SC12-1986
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
136 So. 3d 1119 Florida Supreme Court (2014) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court imposed sanctions on an inmate who filed a frivolous habeas corpus petition containing false information and had abused the court system through eleven extraordinary writ petitions since 2012. The Court prohibited Williams from filing any further pro se pleadings related to his conviction case unless signed by a licensed Florida attorney, and directed the Clerk to forward a certified copy of the opinion to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures.


Holding

The Florida Supreme Court found that sanctions were appropriate and imposed a prohibition against Williams filing any further pro se pleadings related to his conviction case unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Court also directed the Clerk to forward a certified copy of its opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes.


Headnotes

[1] A court may impose sanctions, including prohibiting further pro se filings, against a state prisoner who files frivolous petitions containing false information.

[2] A prisoner's repeated filing of meritless extraordinary writ petitions, even when arguing that manifest injustice has occurred, does not excuse the imposition of sanction…

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

Key Quotes

“each proceeding initiated by Williams was either devoid of merit or inappropriate for review in this Court”

The Court's finding that all eleven extraordinary writ petitions filed by Williams lacked merit or were improper for Supreme Court jurisdiction

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Donald Williams, a state inmate convicted of five counts of kidnapping, five counts of robbery, two counts of aggravated battery, one count of burglar…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

*1120PER CURIAM.

Donald Williams, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court challenging his convictions and sentences in State v. Williams, Case No. F02-37491B.1 By order dated August 28, 2013, we dismissed Williams’ petition. Williams v. Crews, 123 So.3d 562 (Fla.2013) (table decision).2 Concurrent with the dismissal of Williams’ petition, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Williams. Id.; see Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion).

Williams was convicted of five counts of kidnapping, five counts of robbery, two counts of aggravated battery, one count of burglary, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In 2005, the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, sentenced Williams to a fifteen-year term on the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon count, to a thirty-year term on each of the aggravated battery counts, and to life in prison on each of the remaining counts. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Williams’ convictions and sentences in a per curiam opinion dated October 18, 2006. Williams v. State, 941 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (table decision). After his convictions and sentences became final, Williams filed numerous pro se filings in this and other courts. Williams’ substantial filing history in the courts below has resulted in him being barred from filing any further pro se filings in both the circuit court and the district court. Williams v. State, 106 So.3d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Order Prohibiting the Defendant From Filing Any Further Postconviction Motions Without the Approval and Signature of an Attorney Licensed in the State of Florida, State v. Williams, No. F02-37491B (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Apr. 7, 2009).

Because Williams’ petition in this case contained false information3 and because Williams has filed eleven extraordinary writ petitions with this Court since 2012,4 *1121this Court issued an order directing Williams to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se filings related to case number F02-37491B.5 This Court also directed Williams to show cause why, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, a certified copy of this Court’s findings should not be forwarded to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Florida Department of Corrections. In response to the order to show cause, Williams argued that sanctions should not be imposed against him because this Court has failed to correct the manifest injustice that he believes has occurred in his case. Williams explained that his pattern of filing numerous extraordinary writ petitions in this Court is the result of this Court failing to analyze the merits of his claims, being “opinionated,” and being manipulated by the Attorney General’s Office.

Upon due consideration of Williams’ response, we find that his arguments are without merit and that he has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. After reviewing Williams’ pro se filings, we find that each proceeding initiated by Williams was either devoid of merit or inappropriate for review in this Court. Williams’ response shows no remorse about providing this Court with false information and misusing its limited judicial resources.6 We conclude that, unless he is stopped, Williams will continue to file mer-itless and misleading requests for relief in this Court regarding his convictions or sentences.

Accordingly, we find that the petition filed by Donald Williams in this case contained false information and is a frivolous proceeding brought before this Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). Consistent with section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2013), we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where Williams is incarcerated. See Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221, 224 (Fla.2009). We also direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Donald Williams that are related to his convictions or sentences in Case No. F02-37491B unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Under the sanction herein imposed, Williams may only petition the Court about his convictions or sentences in Case No. F02-37491B through the assistance of counsel whenever such counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be filed in good faith.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Brown v. Jones, 221 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
    …nce that unless he is stopped, [he] will continue filing nonmeritorious requests for relief in this Court.’ ” Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080, 1082 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008)); see also Williams v. Crews, 136 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 2014). Accordingly, in addition to the sanctions already imposed upon Mr, Brown’s ability to challenge his convictions and sentences pro se, we hereby direct the Clerk to reject for filing any further appeals, petitions, motions, documents,…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw