ALBERTO RIVERA, SR., 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed its previous denial of Rivera's habeas corpus petition and imposed sanctions preventing him from filing pro se motions in this court. Rivera filed successive rule 3.850 motions making substantially similar arguments across multiple cases, violating a prior warning against repetitive filings.
The court imposed sanctions prohibiting Rivera from filing pro se filings in the trial court case without review and signature by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The court determined that Rivera's filings constituted an abuse of postconviction relief procedures warranting sanctions.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant's future filings when their numerous, repetitive, and meritless petitions burden judicial resources.
[2] A court may direct its clerk to reject pro se filings related to specific case numbers unless signed by a licensed attorney, absent a pending direct appeal.
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“When we affirmed the denial in the instant case, we also issued a Spencer order, directing the appellant to show cause why this court should not impose the sanction of no longer accepting his pro se filings.”
Establishes the court's authority and procedure for imposing sanctions under the Spencer standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRivera previously received a cautionary order in August 2011 warning that further abusive, repetitive, or frivolous filings could result in sanctions.…
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 Successive Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
On Order to Show Cause
We previously affirmed the summary denial of the appellant’s petition for writ of *555habeas corpus, which the trial court correctly treated as an untimely and successive rule 3.850 motion. Rivera v. State, 2014 WL 553786 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 13, 2014).
In an order issued on August 17, 2011, in case number 4D11-329, the appellant was cautioned that any further abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings might result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filings in this court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999); § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Nevertheless, the instant appeal is taken from the denial of a petition filed in June of 2013 which is substantially similar to the motion at issue in case numbers 4D11-329, 4D08-2231, and 4D08-5184.
When we affirmed the denial in the instant case, we also issued a Spencer order, directing the appellant to show cause why this court should not impose the sanction of no longer accepting his pro se filings. Appellant responded to the order but has not satisfactorily shown why we should not impose sanctions pursuant to Spencer. He continues to insist that because he obtained a document establishing that he failed to appear on a DUI charge in Georgia, where his nonappearance was considered a conviction and his bond forfeiture a fine, that said conviction therefore was “uncounseled” and could not be counted as one of the three or more prior DUI convictions necessary to make the one charged in the instant case a felony under section 316.193(2)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2003). It is not as simple as that. See Yacoub v. State, 85 So.3d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 104 So.3d 1087 (Fla.2012) (setting forth steps involved in defendant’s establishing the state’s improper reliance on prior uncounseled misdemeanor DUI conviction to obtain felony charge).
The appellant’s response convinces this court of the need to impose sanctions to prevent his abuse of postconviction relief procedures. See McCutcheon v. State, 44 So.3d 156, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Therefore, the Clerk of this court is directed to no longer accept any filings by Alberto Rivera, Sr., in trial court case number 50-2003-CF-010679-AXXX-MB unless the documents have been reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The appellant’s pro se filings in connection with said lower tribunal case number will no longer be accepted by this court.
Sanctions imposed.
WARNER, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Norris v. Treadwell, 934 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)
- Yacoub v. State, 85 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)