HENRY ABNER THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Henry Thomas was found in contempt of court for filing six identical habeas corpus petitions and postconviction motions raising the same meritless issue regarding his charging document, despite prior adverse rulings by the appellate court. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the contempt finding and issued an order to show cause why Thomas should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals related to his case.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt, holding that Thomas's willful filing of identical pleadings on the same decided issue constituted contemptuous conduct calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the administration of justice.
[1] A party may be held in contempt of court for willfully filing numerous meritless pleadings on the same issue already decided adversely.
[2] Filing repeated postconviction motions or habeas corpus petitions raising the identical issue previously decided on the merits can constitute a willful obstruction of jus…
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 intelligence“To establish criminal contempt, the evidence must establish a 'willful act or omission calculated to embarrass or hinder the court or obstruct the administration of justice.'”
The legal standard for criminal contempt that the court applied to Thomas's conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was convicted in 2005 of four counts of third-degree grand theft and one count of conspiracy to commit grand theft, and was sentenced to twenty…
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 Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
Henry Thomas appeals an order finding him in contempt due to his numerous mer-itless filings on the same issue, which has already been reviewed and disposed of by this Court adversely to Thomas.1
As the thorough order on appeal points out, since Thomas’s conviction and sentence became final in 2007, Thomas has raised the identical issue for relief (i.e., that the charging document was fraudulently or improperly filed) six times in the form of postconviction motions and habeas corpus petitions.
After raising the same exact issue for the sixth time in an April 17, 2014 petition for habeas corpus, the trial court denied the petition and issued an order directing Thomas to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court.
Thomas answered the trial court’s order by written response arguing that the State was attempting to “mislead” the trial court. Thomas’s response, .however, acknowledged that his stated ground for relief had been previously decided on the merits, as well as on procedural grounds. The trial court found Thomas in contempt of court and prohibited Thomas from the further filing of any pro se pleadings or papers related to lower tribunal case number 03-5870. Thomas filed the instant appeal.
We affirm the order finding Thomas in contempt. See Carter v. State, 954 So.2d 1185,1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“To establish criminal contempt, the evidence must establish a ‘willful act or omission calculated to embarrass or hinder the court or obstruct the administration of justice.’ ”) (quoting Forbes v. State, 933 So.2d 706, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)); Fair v. Lo Scalzo, 287 So.2d 327, 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (finding the filing of a pleading that contained contemptuous statements constituted criminal contempt).
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Thomas is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days from the date of this opinion, why he should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to lower tribunal case number 03-5870.
If Thomas does not demonstrate good cause, any such further and unauthorized filings by Thomas will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).
Affirmed. Order to show cause issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Forbes v. State, 933 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Fair v. Scalzo, 287 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Seme v. State, 86 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Carter v. State, 954 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)