PRESTON LEONARD SCHOFIELD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT.
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 Supreme Court imposed sanctions on Preston Leonard Schofield for abusing the Court's limited resources by filing thirty-five meritless pro se petitions and notices since 2013. The Court barred Schofield from filing further pro se requests regarding six specific case numbers unless represented by Florida Bar counsel, finding his repeated frivolous filings constituted an abuse of judicial resources.
The Court found that Schofield abused the Court's limited judicial resources through his extensive history of filing meritless pro se petitions and notices, and failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. The Court barred Schofield from filing future pleadings or requests for relief regarding six specified case numbers unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar, requiring him to proceed through counsel who determines the proceedings have merit and can be filed in good faith.
[1] A court may sanction a party for abuse of judicial resources through repeated frivolous filings.
[2] A party who has a history of filing numerous meritless pro se petitions may be prohibited from filing further pro se requests for relief.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“This Court has never granted Schofield the relief sought in any of his filings here. Each of his thirty-five other petitions and notices has been denied, dismissed, or transferred to another court for consideration”
Establishes the complete failure of Schofield's litigation history in the Court, supporting the finding of pattern frivolous filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchofield filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis on December 25, 2017, challenging a 2015 conviction and sentence for assault. The Court dismi…
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 Inherent Judicial Power cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court following dismissal of Preston Leonard Schofield's *155pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. On February 21, 2018, we dismissed the petition and expressly retained jurisdiction to exercise our inherent judicial authority to pursue sanctions against Schofield for his abuse of this Court's limited resources. See Pettway v. McNeil , 987 So.2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008) ; see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court's Motion). Because Schofield had filed thirty-five other meritless petitions and notices with this Court since 2013, we ordered him to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se requests for relief in this Court relating to circuit and county court case numbers 592011DR0022570000XX, 592011MM004051A000XX, 592013MM010912A000XX, 292014MM000070000AHC, 522014CF014665XXXXPC, and 592011MM004272A000XX. See Schofield v. State , No. SC17-2281, 2018 WL 1007874 (Fla. Feb. 21, 2018). We now find that Schofield has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, and we sanction him as set forth below.
Schofield has filed with this Court thirty-five other petitions and notices challenging various convictions and sentences, as well as various family court orders pertaining to child custody and other divorce matters.1 This Court has never granted Schofield *156the relief sought in any of his filings here. Each of his thirty-five other petitions and notices has been denied, dismissed, or transferred to another court for consideration; his petition in this case is no exception.
Schofield filed the instant petition for writ of error coram nobis with this Court on December 25, 2017. In it, he challenged a 2015 conviction and sentence for assault, and argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the charge against him. Because the writ of error coram nobis no longer exists in Florida, on February 21, 2018, we dismissed the petition pursuant to Wood v. State , 750 So.2d 592, 595 (Fla. 1999). In so doing, we expressly retained jurisdiction to consider the imposition of sanctions, and in accordance with State v. Spencer , 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999), ordered Schofield to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se requests for relief with this Court.
Rather than file a timely response to the Court's order, Schofield filed a petition for writ of prohibition on March 26, 2018, see Schofield v. Schofield , No. SC18-475, followed on March 29, 2018, by a motion in the instant case. In the motion, Schofield simply reiterates the arguments that he raised in his most recent batch of petitions that he filed with this Court, which were all meritless and ultimately dismissed. See Schofield v. State , No. SC17-2281, 2018 WL 1007874 (Fla. Feb. 21, 2018) ; Schofield v. State , No. SC17-2280, 2018 WL 862941 (Fla. Feb. 14, 2018) ; Schofield v. State , No. SC17-2279, 2018 WL 862786 (Fla. Feb. 14, 2018) ; Schofield v. Schofield , No. SC17-2278, 2018 WL 859763 (Fla. Feb. 14, 2018) ; Schofield v. State , No. SC17-2277, 2018 WL 859605 (Fla. Feb. 14, 2018). We hereby deny Schofield's motion. Additionally, on April 12, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring Schofield's prohibition petition to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for consideration by that court. Schofield v. Schofield , No. SC18-475, 2018 WL 1750897 (Fla. Apr. 12, 2018). Neither of these new filings, however, contain any justification for Schofield's continued abuse of this Court's limited resources by filing numerous meritless pro se petitions and notices.
Therefore, as a result of Schofield's extensive history of filing meritless pro se petitions and notices in this Court, we hereby find that Schofield has abused this Court's limited judicial resources, and has failed to show cause why this Court should not impose sanctions for his repeated frivolous filings. It is clear that if left unrestrained, he will continue his pattern of filing meritless petitions in this Court. Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief regarding circuit and county court case numbers 592011DR0022570000XX, 592011MM004051A000XX, 592013MM010912A000XX, 292014MM000070000AHC, *157522014CF014665XXXXPC, and 592011MM004272A000XX, submitted by Preston Leonard Schofield unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Henceforth, Schofield may only petition this Court through the assistance of counsel whenever such counsel determines that the proceedings have merit and can be filed in good faith.
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 LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abboud v. Iryna R. Abboud, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)…istory of repetitious and frivolous pro se filings and in an effort to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from any further pro se filings concerning St. Johns County Circuit Court Case No. 2021-DR-1650. See Schofield v. State, 244 So. 3d 154, 156 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting any future filings from defendant who filed successive and meritless appeals including in his child custody and divorce proceedings). The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se 1 This ord…
-
Raimundo Antonio Hogan v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…or coram nobis. The trial court treated the petition as a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and summarily denied the motion as untimely. “[T]he writ of error coram nobis no longer exists in Florida.” See Schofield v. State, 244 So. 3d 154, 156 (Fla. 2018); see also Woods v. State, 750 So. 2d 592, 594–95 (Fla. 1999) (holding that the writ of error coram nobis is no longer available under Florida law, but explaining that for those cases in which guilt was adjudicated before the opinion…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Pleadro J. Scott v. Warden Mr. Ronnie Quinn (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)