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 Abner Thomas, a pro se criminal defendant, challenged a trial court contempt order and sought to prohibit further filings related to his criminal sentencing. The appellate court upheld the contempt finding and issued an order prohibiting Thomas from filing pro se petitions, appeals, or motions in the appellate court regarding his underlying criminal case, allowing only attorney-signed filings.
The court affirmed the contempt order and prohibited Thomas from filing pro se appeals or petitions related to his criminal case. The court rejected Thomas's jurisdictional argument, finding the record conclusively established that an information had been filed and Thomas was aware of the charges. The court found the balance between pro se access to courts and judicial resource management weighed in favor of the prohibition.
[1] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further appeals, petitions, motions, or other proceedings related to a specific case after issuing an order to show cau…
[2] A litigant's claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of an information is refuted by the record if the record contains the original information an…
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“[D]enying a pro se litigant the opportunity to file future petitions is a serious sanction, especially where the litigant is a criminal defendant”
Establishes the serious nature of restricting pro se access to courts, even when justified by circumstances
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, sentenced to twenty-five ye…
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 Pro Se Litigant Access To Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
On May 27, 2015, this Court issued an opinion denying Henry Abner Thomas’s appeal from an order of the trial court finding him in contempt due to his numerous filings in circuit court on .the same issue.1 Óur opinion contained an order to show cause why Thomas should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions, or other proceedings related to his criminal sentencing in circuit court case number 03-5870.2
In both his petition for writ of ha-beas corpus and- his response to our order to show cause, Thomas states that because the State never filed an information, the State lacked subject matter jurisdiction to *310try and convict him of any criminal offense.
Thomas’s allegation is conclusively refuted by the record. The record contains the original information with the original file date stamp. Furthermore, Thomas, acting pro se, filed a plethora of motions in which he either referenced the information, thereby acknowledging it, or reiterated the exact charges he was facing. Therefore, it is clear from the record that he was fully aware of the information and the charges contained therein.
Because Thomas’s response to our show cause order introduces no new argument or information for our consideration, we conclude that Thomas has not demonstrated good cause to justify further filings of appeals, petitions, motions, and other pleadings with this Court.
We must balance Thomas’s pro se right of access to courts with the Court’s need to devote its finite resources to legitimate appeals. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (“[D]enying a pro se litigant the opportunity to file future petitions is a serious sanction, especially where the litigant is a criminal defendant ... ”). Accordingly, after an order to show cause and an opportunity to answer, a court may prevent such further filings. Id.
It is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the Court of the Third District Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept further pro se filings related to case number 03-5870; provided, however, that filings related to case number 03-5870 may be accepted by the Clerk if such filings have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.
Any further and unauthorized pro se filings by Thomas will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.
Order issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Seme v. State, 86 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)