156 So. 3d 2
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Solomon Roberts, pro se, sought to withdraw pleas entered over 30 years earlier and asked the court to treat his appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus to correct a manifest injustice.
- The Third District Court of Appeal declined to treat the appeal as a habeas petition and affirmed the lower court’s order.
- Roberts has filed at least 14 prior pro se appeals or original proceedings relating to circuit court case numbers 82-8169, 82-9856, and 82-15413; almost all prior filings were denied or affirmed.
- The court found Roberts has repeatedly filed meritless, frivolous, and successive collateral claims, consuming judicial resources and risking the overshadowing of legitimate claims.
- The court cited precedent recognizing that the right to proceed pro se is not absolute and may be forfeited after notice and an opportunity to be heard when a litigant abuses the judicial process.
- The court issued an order to show cause directing Roberts to explain within 30 days why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se papers related to the three specified case numbers; absent good cause, future filings will be refused unless signed by counsel and may result in sanctions, including referral to the Department of Corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Roberts' Argument | Third DCA/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should treat Roberts’ appeal as a habeas corpus petition to correct a manifest injustice | The appeal should be treated as habeas to obtain relief from long-ago pleas | The appeal is not converted to habeas; no relief warranted | Court declined to treat appeal as habeas and affirmed the lower court |
| Whether Roberts should be restricted from filing further pro se pleadings in the related cases | Roberts implicitly asserts continued access to file pro se pleadings | Repeated frivolous/successive filings abuse process; pro se right may be curtailed after notice and hearing | Court ordered Roberts to show cause why he should not be barred from further pro se filings; absent good cause, future filings will be refused unless signed by counsel and may incur sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Hedrick v. State, 6 So.3d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting frivolous filings can bury meritorious claims and waste resources)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (pro se right may be forfeited after abuse of the judicial process following notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (recognizing a point at which repetitive filings justify restriction: "enough is enough")
- Roberts v. State, 821 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Roberts obtained limited relief on a narrow sentencing/jurisdiction issue; other claims were successive and denied)