Rivera v. State, 229 So. 3d 401

Samuel Rivera was convicted in 1987 of first‑degree murder and armed robbery; the murder conviction and life sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, but the armed robbery sentence was vacated and Rivera was ordered re‑sentenced.
Rivera was re‑sentenced in 1989 and since then has repeatedly filed post‑conviction appeals and petitions (at least a dozen to this Court).
In November 2012 the trial court issued a show‑cause order addressing Rivera’s prolific pro se filings and, after Rivera’s response, entered a December 21, 2012 order prohibiting him from filing further pro se pleadings in circuit court case no. 85‑25037.
Rivera previously appealed both his underlying conviction and the 2012 show‑cause/sanctions orders; those appeals were unsuccessful.
On April 29, 2016 Rivera filed a "Notice for Belated Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc" that sought appellate review of his underlying conviction and the 2012 prohibition; the State moved to dismiss.
The court granted the State’s motion to dismiss Rivera’s belated appeal, dismissed Rivera’s related May 26, 2017 motion, and issued a new order directing Rivera to show cause within 45 days why he should not be barred from any further pro se filings related to case no. 85‑25037, warning of sanctions including referral to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rivera’s belated appeal may proceed	Rivera sought to pursue a belated appeal challenging his convictions and the 2012 prohibition	State moved to dismiss as duplicative and procedurally barred given prior appeals and orders	Dismissed Rivera’s belated appeal; State’s motion granted
Whether the court should revisit the 2012 show‑cause and prohibition orders	Rivera attempted to challenge the 2012 orders via the belated appeal	State argued those orders already were litigated and not subject to a new belated appeal	Court treated challenge as improper and reaffirmed that prior rulings bar relitigation
Whether Rivera should be barred from future pro se filings in case no. 85‑25037	Rivera implied continued right to file pro se pleadings	State sought enforcement of the prohibition and sought dismissal of the filing	Court issued an order to show cause requiring Rivera to justify further pro se filings; warned of sanctions if he fails to show cause
Appropriate sanctions for unauthorized filings	Rivera did not identify reasons to avoid sanctions	State requested dismissal and enforcement measures, including disciplinary referral	Court authorized potential sanctions, including written findings to DOC for consideration of disciplinary action (e.g., forfeiture of gain time) if Rivera fails to show cause

Rivera v. State, 526 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (affirming murder conviction and life sentence; remanding for re‑sentencing on robbery)
Rivera v. State, 109 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (appeal addressing the trial court’s show‑cause and sanctions orders was unsuccessful)