ANTHONY J. FAILS, PETITIONER,
v.
JULIE L. JONES, ETC., RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2017-06-15
No. SC17-327
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
219 So. 3d 790 Florida Supreme Court (2017) 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 pro se filing restrictions on an inmate who had filed 27 extraordinary writ petitions since 2008, with 13 pertaining to the same conviction. The Court found Fails' habeas petition challenging his convictions for attempted sexual battery and aggravated battery frivolous and unauthorized, and directed that future pro se filings regarding that case be rejected unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar.


Holding

The Court held that Fails' habeas petition is unauthorized because the claims could have or should have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, and therefore dismissed the petition. The Court further held that Fails' persistent pattern of filing frivolous and meritless requests for relief constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting pro se filing restrictions on future pleadings pertaining to his conviction case.


Headnotes

[1] A court may sanction a litigant for abusing the judicial process through repeated, frivolous filings.

[2] A court may impose restrictions on pro se filings when a litigant has persistently abused the judicial process with frivolous or meritless requests for relief.

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

“All of Fails' filings in this Court seeking to challenge these convictions and sentences have been frivolous, devoid of merit; or inappropriate for consideration by this Court.”

Establishes the pattern and nature of Fails' prior filings that justified the imposition of sanctions.

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

Anthony J. Fails, an inmate in state custody, was convicted in Escambia County Circuit Court in 2005 of attempted sexual battery and aggravated batter…

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.

Anthony' J. Fails, ah inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court.1 His peti*791tion in this case is the twenty-seventh extraordinary writ petition or notice he-.has filed with this Court since 2008. It is..the thirteenth extraordinary writ petition or notice he has filed pertaining to -Escambia County Circuit ■ Court case number 172Q04CF003733XXXAXX. We dismissed Fails’ petition in this case and, in doing so, expressly, retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against him. Fails v. Jones, No. SC17-327, 2017 WL 1046225 (Fla. Mar. 20, 2017) (dismissing habeas petition and directing Fails to show cause why pro se filing restrictions should not be imposed); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion).

Fails was convicted in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, in and for Escambia County, Florida, in case number 172004CF003733XXXAXX, of attempted sexual. battery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced in November' 2005 to fifteen years’ imprisonment on ’each count. All of Fails’ -filings in -this Court seeking to challenge these convictions and sentences have been frivolous, devoid of merit; or inappropriate for consideration by this Court.2 In addition to those filings specifically challenging his convictions and sentences in case number 172004CF003733XXXAXX, Fails has initiated fourteen other proceedings in this Court.3 We have never granted Fails the relief sought by him in any of his filings.

Fails’ habeas petition in this case is no exception. In it, Fails challenged his convictions in case number 172004CF003733XXXAXX, arguing that, he was wrongfully convicted based on an invalid charging information and,improper jury instructions. The petition raised claims that could have or should have been raised ,at trial and, if properly preserved, *792on direct appeal in his criminal case. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(c) (stating that relief on such claims is unauthorized). Because we determined that the relief Fails sought was unauthorized, we dismissed the petition pursuant to Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004), and in accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999), we directed Fails to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se requests for relief in this Court pertaining to case number 172004CF003733XXXAXX. Subsequent to the issuance of the order to show cause, Fails filed eight pleadings. In his response to the show cause order, Fails continued to raise the same arguments raised in his previous petitions before this Court concerning his convictions. He argued that his convictions constituted a manifest injustice and that as a result, this Court should vacate his convictions. Upon due consideration of Fails’ response, we find that his arguments are without merit.

This Court has exercised its inherent authority to sanction litigants who abuse the judicial process and burden its limited resources with repeated requests for relief that are either frivolous or devoid of merit. E.g., Hastings v. State, 79 So.3d 739, 742 (Fla. 2011); Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So.3d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 2011). Through his persistent filing of frivolous or meritless requests for relief, Fails has abused the judicial process and burdened this Court’s limited judicial resources.4 Fails’ response to this Court’s order to show cause failed to offer any justification for his abuse or to express regret for his repeated misuse of this Court’s resources. His seven filings in addition to his response further indicate that Fails does not appreciate or respect the judicial process or this Court’s limited judicial resources. We are therefore convinced 'that if not restrained, Fails will continue to abuse the judicial process and burden this Court with frivolous and mer-itless filings pertaining to circuit court case number 172004CF003733XXXAXX.

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Anthony J. Fails that pertain to case number 172004CF003733XXXAXX, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Under the sanction herein imposed, Fails may petition this Court about his convictions or sentences in case number 172004CF003733XXXAXX only when such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar whenever such counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be filed in good faith.

Additionally, we find that the petition filed by Anthony J. Fails in this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before this Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). Consistent with section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2016), 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 Fails is incarcerated. See Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221, 224 (Fla. 2009).

All other pending motions and requests for relief are hereby denied. No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court.

It is so ordered.

*793LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Diaz v. Dixon, 402 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
    …iaz petitions this court for habeas relief. Habeas relief is not available for matters that could have and should have been raised on direct appeal; or for matters that have already been ruled on through another appellate procedure. Fails v. Jones, 219 So. 3d 790, 791-92 (Fla. 2017); Zuluaga v. State, Dept. of Corr., 32 So. 3d 674, 676-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal, or which coul…
  • Kendal Major v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw