Fox v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7185
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Fox challenges the 2003 revocation of his probation via postconviction motions under Rule 3.850, all of which were untimely and successive.
- The Fourth District affirmed the trial court’s denial of Fox’s fifth Rule 3.850 motion as untimely and successive and noted repeated meritless challenges.
- The court issued an order to show cause seeking to bar Fox’s pro se filings in the Palm Beach circuit case, citing abuse of the postconviction process.
- Fox argued that a belated appeal granted in 2007 opened a new two-year window for postconviction challenges, making his latest motion timely.
- The court rejected Fox’s argument, treating his belated appeal as pertaining to resentencing, not to the 2003 VOP challenge, and reaffirmed the untimeliness.
- The court ultimately directed the clerk not to accept Fox’s filings in the Palm Beach case unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions for pro se filings are warranted | Fox contends belated appeal created a new window for challenges. | State asserts abuse of postconviction process; sanctions appropriate. | Sanction affirmed; no longer accept pro se filings. |
| Whether the fifth Rule 3.850 motion was timely or successive | Fox argues movant timing should be considered timely due to belated appeal. | State maintains motions were untimely and successive. | Untimely and successive. |
| Whether belated appeal affected the timeliness of postconviction challenges | Belated appeal opened a new window for postconviction challenges. | Belated appeal concerns resentencing, not 2003 VOP challenges. | No new two-year window created; motion still untimely. |
| Whether the court’s prior rulings foreclose further merits challenges | Repeatedly raised uniquely meritorious arguments. | Challenges are meritless and have been adjudicated previously. | Challenged claims deemed wholly without merit. |
| Whether the court may restrict future filings to bar pro se submissions | N/A (not directly stated). | Court may refuse filings to protect administration of justice. | Direct the clerk to decline pro se filings unless signed by a Florida Bar member. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (abuse of postconviction process harms justice)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (no longer accept meritless pro se filings)
- Fox v. State, 949 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (first belated appeal related to VOP proceedings)
- Fox v. State, 956 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (second denial of postconviction relief on untimeliness)
- Fox v. State, 921 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (resentencing belatedly appealed; critical stage involved defendant)
- Fox v. State, 997 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (belated appeal granted)
- Fox v. State, 977 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (further postconviction challenges denied)
- Fox v. State, 4 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (denial affirmed; repeated postconviction submissions)