SAMUEL RIVERA, 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.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed its prior order dismissing Samuel Rivera's belated appeal motion and imposed a prohibition on further pro se filings in his decades-old murder and armed robbery case, allowing filings only if represented by a licensed Florida attorney.
The Court affirmed its prohibition on Rivera's pro se filings related to his 1987 convictions, directing the Clerk to refuse acceptance of any further pro se filings unless signed by a licensed Florida Bar attorney. The Court concluded that Rivera failed to demonstrate good cause to justify further pro se filings and that the prohibition does not violate the constitutional right of access to courts because that right may be forfeited through abuse of the judicial process.
[1] An incarcerated person's constitutional right to access the courts may be forfeited due to abuse of the judicial process.
[2] A court may prohibit further pro se filings from an individual after providing notice and an opportunity to respond to an order to show cause.
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“the constitutional right may be forfeited if that person abuses the judicial process”
Establishes that the right of access to courts is not absolute and can be lost through abuse of judicial process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel Rivera, incarcerated since his 1987 convictions for first degree murder and armed robbery in circuit court case number 85-25037, filed a "Notic…
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 Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
On July 5, 2017, this Court issued an order granting the State of Florida’s motion to dismiss Appellant Samuel Rivera’s “Notice for Belated Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc Motion,” which had sought to advance Rivera’s continuing and repetitive efforts to overturn his 1987 convictions for first degree murder and armed robbery. Contained within the Court’s order was an order to show cause why Rivera should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any pro se appeals, petitions, motions, or other proceedings related to his criminal sentencing in circuit court case number 85-25037.
Rivera’s August 4, 2017 response to our show cause order introduces no new argu*701ment or information for our consideration. We conclude that Rivera has not demonstrated good cause to justify further pleadings with this Court, absent the participation of an attorney to represent him.
The access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution—Article I, section 21—provides an avenue for an incarcerated person in Florida to challenge the legal basis of his or her incarceration; however, this constitutional right may be forfeited if that person abuses the judicial process. Jimenez v. State, 196 So.3d 499, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Our responsibility is to balance the incarcerated person’s right to access to courts with the need of this Court to devote its finite resources to legitimate appeals and petitions. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Accordingly, after notice in the form of an order to show cause and an opportunity for the incarcerated person to respond, a court may prevent further filings. Id.; see also Whipple v. State, 112 So.3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Because we conclude that Rivera has not demonstrated good cause to justify further pro se filings of appeals, petitions, motions, or other proceedings with this Court, we direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept from Rivera further pro se filings related to circuit court case number 85-25037; provided, however, that the Clerk may accept filings related to case ilumber 85-25037 if such filings have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.
Any such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Rivera 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)
- Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)