Montesinos v. State
143 So. 3d 1055
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In May 2006 Montesinos was convicted of attempted felony murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, and burglary with an assault or battery; he was adjudicated a prison-release reoffender and sentenced to natural life.
- The Third DCA affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.
- Since 2006 Montesinos has filed numerous postconviction motions and petitions relating to lower tribunal case no. 03-28869B, many of which this court previously rejected.
- On December 17, 2013 he appealed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence and of a rehearing; the Third DCA affirmed that denial on May 14, 2014 and issued a show-cause order why he should not be barred from further pro se filings.
- After reviewing Montesinos’ response and the record, the court concluded he had not shown good cause for further relief and that his filings were repetitious/frivolous.
- The court directed the clerk to refuse any further pro se filings related to this conviction and sentence unless filed by a Florida Bar member, and ordered the opinion sent to DOC for possible disciplinary action if Montesinos violates the restriction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct illegal sentence and rehearing | Montesinos argued the denial was erroneous and that disputed facts require an evidentiary hearing; he asserted inability to articulate claims should not bar him | State argued prior merits review and multiple prior denials show no remaining disputed facts or entitlement to relief | Court held no good cause shown; no evidentiary hearing required; affirmed denial |
| Whether the court may restrict further pro se filings about this conviction | Montesinos argued procedural barring would be fundamentally unfair given his inability to articulate claims | Court/State relied on precedent allowing courts to reject repetitive or frivolous pro se prisoner filings and manage docket | Court held it may prohibit further pro se filings related to this case unless filed by an attorney; directed clerk to refuse filings in violation of order |
| Whether disciplinary referral to DOC is appropriate for violation of filing restriction | Montesinos did not contest in substance; argued access to courts concerns | Court cited statutes and precedent authorizing notification to DOC to consider disciplinary measures if he attempts to file in violation of the order | Court directed clerk to forward certified copy to DOC for consideration of disciplinary measures |
Key Cases Cited
- Tillman v. State, 287 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Woodson v. State, 100 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (prisoner entitled to adequate opportunity to access courts)
- Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (prisoners have procedural vehicles but no right to file frivolous suits)
- Hepburn v. State, 934 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (court may curb repetitive/frivolous inmate litigation)
- Edwards v. State, 96 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (denying further filings after pattern of meritless claims)
- Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008) (procedures for handling prohibited filings by inmates)