Clark v. Crews

• Decision Date: 23 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. SC14–866.,SC14–866.
• Citation: 147 So.3d 521 (Table)
• Parties: Shannon L. CLARK, Petitioner(s) v. Michael D. CREWS, etc., Respondent(s).
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

147 So.3d 521 (Table)

Shannon L. CLARK, Petitioner(s)

v.Michael D. CREWS, etc., Respondent(s).

No. SC14–866.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 23, 2014.

Opinion

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby denied. The Court hereby retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court's Motion).

Petitioner's convictions and sentences under Case No. CRC00–21224CFANO–C in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, have been the subject of numerous extraordinary writ petitions filed by the petitioner since 2006. Petitioner has not obtained relief on the merits of any petition. See Clark v. McDonough, SC06–2184 (Fla. Dec. 11, 2006) (petition for writ of habeas corpus transferred); Clark v. McDonough, SC07–76 (Fla. Jan. 29, 2007) (petition for writ of habeas corpus transferred); Clark v. State, 958 So.2d 918 (Fla.2007) (unpublished table decision) (petition for writ of mandamus denied pursuant to State ex rel. North St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 11 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla.1943) ); Clark v. McDonough, 975 So.2d 428 (Fla.2008) (unpublished table decision) (petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed pursuant to Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) ); Clark v. State, 5 So.3d 668 (Fla.2009) (unpublished table decision) (petition for writ of mandamus denied pursuant to Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.2000) ); Clark v. McNeil, SC08–2311 (Fla. Jan. 15, 2009) (petition for writ of habeas corpus transferred); Clark v. McNeil, 4 So.3d 676 (Fla.2009) (unpublished table decision) (petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed pursuant to Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) ); Clark v. McNeil, SC09–854 (Fla. Nov. 17, 2009) (petition for writ of mandamus transferred); Clark v. State, SC09–1051 (Fla. Aug. 18, 2009) (petition for writ of prohibition transferred); Clark v. State, 19 So.3d 310 (Fla.2009) (unpublished table decision) (petition for writ of mandamus denied pursuant to State ex rel. North St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 11 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla.1943) ); Clark v. McNeil, 51 So.3d 465 (Fla.2010) (unpublished table decision) (petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Clark v. State, 59 So.3d 107 (Fla.2011) (unpublished table decision) (petition for writ of mandamus denied pursuant to Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.2000) ); Clark v. McNeil, SC10–1996 (Fla. Dec. 7, 2010) (petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed pursuant Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) ); Clark v. McNeil, SC10–2021 (Fla. Dec. 2, 2010) (petition for writ of mandamus transferred); Clark v. State, SC11–2195 (Fla. Nov. 28, 2011) (petition for writ of mandamus transferred); Clark v. State, SC12–2139 (Fla. Oct. 24, 2012) (petition for writ of mandamus transferred); Clark v. Khouzam, SC13–1876 (Fla. Dec. 16, 2013) (petition for writ of quo warranto transferred); Clark v. State, SC13–2124 (Fla. Feb. 27, 2014) (petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Clark v. McCabe, SC13–2476 (Fla. Feb. 27, 2014) (petition for writ of quo warranto denied pursuant to Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla.1975) ); Clark v. State, SC13–2478 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2014) (petition for writ of mandamus transferred); Clark v. State, SC13–2484 (Fla. Feb. 27, 2014) (petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Clark v. State, SC14–468 (Fla. Apr. 30, 2014) (petition for writ of mandamus dismissed); and Clark v. Crews, SC14–546 (Fla. May 9, 2014) (petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed pursuant to Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004) ).

This Court has chosen to sanction pro se petitioners who have abused the judicial process and otherwise misused this Court's limited judicial resources by filing frivolous, nonmeritorious, or otherwise inappropriate filings related to their convictions and sentences. Such petitioners have been barred from initiating further proceedings in this Court related to their convictions and sentences unless their pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief were filed under the signature of a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See, e.g., Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221 (Fla.2009) ; Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008) ; Tate v. McNeil, 983 So.2d 502 (Fla.2008) ; Rivera v. State, 728 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1998).

It appearing that petitioner has abused the legal processes of this Court with his constant meritless filings, the Court now directs petitioner to show cause on or before July 8, 2014, why he should not be prevented from filing further pro se pleadings and other papers pertaining to his criminal convictions and sentences in Case No. CRC00–21224CFANO–C unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The petitioner is also directed to show cause why, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, a certified copy of the Court's findings should not be forwarded to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Florida Department of Corrections as provided in section 944.09, Florida Statutes.

PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.