Roberts v. State
224 So. 3d 289
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Solomon Roberts filed numerous pro se postconviction and related pleadings concerning circuit court case F78-5774B; this Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus on April 20, 2017.
- The Court issued an order to show cause directing Roberts to explain why he should not be barred from filing further pro se filings related to F78-5774B.
- Roberts has repeatedly filed meritless, frivolous, and successive claims already rejected by courts.
- Prior courts (Third DCA, Florida Supreme Court, and an Eleventh Circuit trial court) have previously barred Roberts from filing pro se pleadings in multiple related case numbers.
- The Court concluded Roberts did not show good cause to continue filing pro se pleadings in F78-5774B and invoked its authority to curb abusive filings while preserving access-to-courts principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roberts may continue to file pro se pleadings in F78-5774B | Roberts sought to continue pro se filings to challenge convictions/sentences | Courts argued filings are successive, frivolous, and abusive after prior adverse rulings | Court barred Roberts from further pro se filings relating to F78-5774B |
| Whether the Court provided adequate notice and opportunity to respond before restriction | Roberts responded to the show-cause order (argued merits/leave to file) | Court maintained it gave notice via show-cause and Roberts had chance to respond | Court found procedural notice adequate under Spencer and denied relief |
| Whether the Clerk must accept pro se filings in F78-5774B | Roberts expected filings to be accepted pro se | State/Court urged refusal of unauthorized pro se filings absent counsel sign-off | Clerk directed to refuse filings on F78-5774B unless signed by licensed attorney |
| Whether sanctions may attach to unauthorized future filings | Roberts did not demonstrate entitlement to continue filing without penalty | Court warned further unauthorized filings may trigger sanctions, including Dept. of Corrections discipline | Court authorized potential sanctions (including reporting to DOC and loss of gain time) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (courts may restrict future pro se filings after abuse with notice and opportunity to respond)
- Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (successive/repetitive motions can forfeit pro se access)
- Philpot v. State, 183 So. 3d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (courts may curtail repetitive filings; "enough is enough")
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (illustrative authority on limiting repetitive pro se filings)
- Cruz v. State, 981 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (authorizing refusal to accept unauthorized pro se filings)
- Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (approving clerk refusal and sanctions procedures for abusive pro se filings)
- Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (procedures for attorney-signed submissions to prevent frivolous pro se filings)
- Roberts v. State, 213 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 2017) (Florida Supreme Court previously barred Roberts from further pro se filings on related convictions)
- Minor v. State, 963 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (supporting sanctions and administrative reporting for abusive inmate filings)