WILLIAMS v. STATE (2021)

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On November 2, 2021, the Court ordered Chey Williams to show cause why his appeal of a trial court disposition refusing to accept his motion because he was previously barred from filing pro se motions should not be dismissed as untimely. In that order we also ordered Williams to show cause why he should not be precluded from filing further pro se pleadings, motions and papers in this court relating to lower tribunal case number F90-49006. When Williams failed to respond to our order within 10 days, we dismissed his appeal. On December 3, 2021, Williams filed his response to our order. The response was placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing on November 19, 2021. The order that Williams seeks to appeal is nothing more than a letter from the clerk of the lower court advising Williams that he was prohibited from filing pro se pleadings on August 11, 2009. Williams was also advised, by court order entered on January 6, 2015, that he had been previously barred from filing pro se motions and the motion that he had recently filed was stricken. The document that Williams seeks to appeal is not an appealable order; therefore, the appeal remains dismissed as previously ordered by this court. The trial court bar order was appealed in case number 3D09-2370, and the order was affirmed by this court.

Upon consideration of Williams’ response to the order to show cause and the successive, duplicative, pro se petitions and appeals brought by Williams, we conclude that good cause has not been shown. Williams has engaged in the filing of meritless, frivolous, and successive claims, continuing to seek relief from this Court notwithstanding prior adverse determinations on the merits.¹

In accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), and Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), Williams is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his conviction, judgment, and sentence in lower tribunal case F90-49006. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to the relevant circuit court case number unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Additionally, any such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Williams may subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Williams’ prior appeals and petitions include 3D91-1980, 93-2542, 94-1126, 94-1989, 95-787, 95-3458, 00-2534, 03-934, 05-1213, 08-150, 09-2370, and 16-1896.

PER CURIAM.