KENNETH L. GRIMSLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
JULIE L. JONES, ETC., RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2016-11-23
No. SC16-1041
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
213 So. 3d 353 Florida Supreme Court (2016) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 215 So. 3d 353
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 dismissed Kenneth Grimsley's habeas corpus petition—his twelfth frivolous filing since 2005—and imposed sanctions barring him from filing future pro se pleadings related to his convictions unless represented by a licensed attorney, finding his pattern of repetitive filings constituted an abuse of judicial resources.


Holding

The court dismissed Grimsley's habeas petition as frivolous because collateral challenges to convictions must be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, not habeas corpus, and trial court error is not cognizable under that rule. The court imposed sanctions prohibiting Grimsley from filing future pro se pleadings related to his convictions unless represented by a licensed Florida Bar member, and directed notification to the Department of Corrections.


Headnotes

[1] A pro se habeas corpus petition filed by a non-capital defendant seeking collateral postconviction relief is unauthorized if it raises claims that could have been raised…

[2] A court may prohibit a prisoner from filing further pro se pleadings in relation to a specific case after the prisoner has filed multiple frivolous or unauthorized petiti…

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

“His petition is the twelfth extraordinary writ petition or notice he has filed with this Court since 2005.”

Establishes the pattern of repetitive filings underlying the court's sanction decision.

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

Grimsley is incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections pursuant to 1997 convictions and sentences for robbery with a firearm, aggravated ba…

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.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on the petition of Kenneth L. Grimsley for a writ of habeas corpus.1 His petition is the twelfth extraordinary writ petition or notice he has filed with this Court since 2005. We dismissed Grimsley’s petition in this case and expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against him based upon the volume and repetitive nature of his frivolous and inappropriate filings. Grimsley v. Jones, No. SC16-1041, 2016 WL 4446496 (Fla. Order Filed Aug. 23, 2016) (unpublished); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion).

Grimsley currently is incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections upon his judgments of conviction and sentences in case number 96-1003-CF for robbery with a firearm (Count I), aggravated battery with a firearm (Count II), and possession of a firearm by a felon (Count III), as well as violation of his probation in case numbers 90-2048-CF (attempted robbery with a deadly weapon), 90-2049-CF (robbery with a firearm), and 90-2050-CF (robbery with a firearm). On April 17, 1997, the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and for Marion County, sentenced Grimsley to seven years’ imprisonment for violating his probation in case numbers 90-2048-CF, 90-2049-CF, and 90-2050-CF. In case number 96-1003-CF, Grimsley was sentenced to forty *354years’ imprisonment as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender as to Counts I and II, and to thirty years’ imprisonment as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender as to Count III. Grimsley did not take a direct appeal.

Grimsley began filing petitions challenging his incarceration with this Court in 2005. Since that time, he has filed eleven additional extraordinary writ petitions or notices.2 All of his filings have pertained to his convictions and sentences in circuit court case numbers 90-2048-CF, 90-2049-CF, 90-2050-CF, and 96-1003-CF, and have been frivolous, devoid of merit, or inappropriate for consideration by this Court. We have never granted Grimsley the relief sought by him in any of his filings.

Grimsley’s habeas petition in this case clearly continues his pattern of filing frivolous pro se requests for relief. In it, Grimsley attempts to collaterally attack the legality of his convictions and sentences based on a claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to fundamental errors. Such use of the writ of habeas corpus is unauthorized as, with limited exceptions, collateral postconviction challenges must be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1245 (Fla.2004). Moreover, Grimsley’s allegations of trial court error are not cognizable by motion under rule 3.850. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c); see also McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388, 1390 (Fla.1983). We dismissed the petition and, in accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), directed Grimsley to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se requests for relief and referred to the Florida Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action as provided in section 944.09, Florida Statutes (2016).

Grimsley filed a response to this Court’s order to show cause, opposing a pro se barring order on the basis that his prior filings were made in good faith based on his right of access to courts, that the Court did not forewarn him of potential sanctions prior to issuance of the order to show cause, and that his filings had been prepared on his behalf by prison law clerks. After considering Grimsley’s response to the show cause order, we conclude that it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. We further conclude that Grimsley’s habeas corpus petition filed in this case, which represents the ninth petition for writ of habeas corpus *355in which he has raised the same issues and sought the same relief, is a frivolous proceeding brought before this Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2016).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Kenneth L. Grimsley that are related to case numbers 90-2048-CF, 90-2049-CF, 90-2050-CF, and 96-1003-CF, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Grimsley’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.3 Furthermore, because we have found Grimsley’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2016), to forward a copy of this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or facility in which Grimsley is incarcerated.

No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court.

It is so ordered.

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


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Frederick v. Inch (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Grimsley v. Jones, 213 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 2016). LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Shaun Frederick, pro…
  • …rt erred in imposing an enhancement on his first degree felony punishable by life without a jury finding to allow enhancement. To the extent Defendant raises this ground as trial court error, it is not cognizable. Grimsley v. Jones, 215 So. 3d 353, 354 (Fla. 2016) (“[A]llegations of trial court error are not cognizable by motion under rule 3.850.”) (citations omitted). However, claims of illegal sentences may be brought at any time through a Rule 3.850 motion. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(a). E…

Authorities Cited (17 total)

View all 17 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw