Pancoast v. Crews
128 So. 3d 815
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Petitioner challenges judgments in Pinellas County Circuit Court case 55-2010-CF-003276-XXXX-NO via habeas corpus; petition filed by a third party not an attorney; petition dismissed as unauthorized.
- Court cites State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski to hold that an unauthorized next friend cannot represent a person in habeas matters.
- Petitioner previously sought habeas relief in this court concerning Pinellas County convictions outside this court's jurisdiction; prior petitions denied under Baker v. State.
- In Pancoast v. Crews, petitioner was warned sanctions may be imposed for further unauthorized petitions; attempt to use a “friend” to file on his behalf did not avoid sanctions.
- Richardson v. Cervone ex rel. DOC and State v. Spencer require notice and opportunity to respond before sanctions; petitioner conceded circumventing court’s order.
- Court holds petitioner is barred from future pro se filings in this court concerning the Pinellas case; Clerk to refuse non-attorney filings; certified copy to be sent to DOE for disciplinary procedures; potential for additional sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized third-party filing in habeas matter | Petitioner | State | Barred; petition unauthorized and dismissed |
| Sanctions for unauthorized petitions and circumvention | Petitioner acknowledged use of outside third party to circumvent order | Sanctions appropriate for abuse of process | Sanctions imposed; further filings barred |
| Future pro se filings barred; bar on non-lawyer submissions | Petitioner | Clerk must enforce bar | Petitioner barred from future pro se filings; filings only by Florida Bar member permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 152 So. 207 (Fla. 1933) (right/relationship needed for next friend representation; absent, not heard)
- Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) (habeas cannot litigate issues that could have been raised on direct appeal or postconviction)
- Pancoast v. Crews, 119 So.3d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (warnings about unauthorized petitions; sanctions may follow)
- Richardson v. Cervone ex rel. DOC, 116 So.3d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (unauthorized filing does not avoid sanctions)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999) (notice and opportunity to respond before sanctions)