Hastings v. State

• Decision Date: 02 February 2012
• Docket Number: No. SC11–205.,SC11–205.
• Citation: 79 So.3d 739
• Parties: Jeffrey Robert HASTINGS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

79 So.3d 739

Jeffrey Robert HASTINGS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. SC11–205.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 17, 2011.Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 2012.

[79 So.3d 740]

Jeffrey Robert Hastings, Jasper, FL, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Robert Hastings, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus with this Court.¹ Hastings' petition is the twenty-seventh notice or extraordinary writ petition he has filed with this Court since 2000. For many years, Hastings has been unsuccessfully attempting to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence for escape in State v. Hastings, Case No. 74–179–CF (Seventh Judicial Circuit), and his convictions or sentences for manslaughter in State v. Hastings, Case No. 79–3126–CFA02 (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit). We now determine that, because Hastings has abused the limited judicial resources of this Court, sanctions are warranted.

In 1974, Hastings entered a guilty plea to escaping from state custody and was sentenced by the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Putnam County, Florida, to a fifteen-year term in prison. In a separate case, Hastings was convicted of six counts of manslaughter and sentenced in 1980 by the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, as a habitual offender to six consecutive thirty-year terms in prison.

After his convictions and sentences in both cases became final, Hastings filed numerous pro se filings in this and other

[79 So.3d 741]

courts. In August 1998, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit issued an order prohibiting Hastings from filing any further pro se filings involving his manslaughter convictions and sentences. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, on June 1, 2001, issued an opinion prohibiting Hastings from filing any further pro se filings involving his conviction and sentence for escape. Hastings v. State, 788 So.2d 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). On January 2, 2003, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion prohibiting Hastings from filing any further pro se filings involving his convictions and sentences for manslaughter. Hastings v. Krischer, 840 So.2d 267, 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

On or about December 17, 2010, Hastings filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus with this Court. In his petition, Hastings requested that we compel the Office of the Public Defender for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to assist him in obtaining postconviction relief. By order dated May 18, 2011, we dismissed Hastings' mandamus petition. Hastings v. State, 64 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011) (table).² Concurrent with the dismissal of his mandamus petition, we expressly retained jurisdiction to impose possible sanctions, and directed Hastings to show cause why this Court should not reject any future pro se filings submitted by him to this Court that pertain to his convictions or sentences in Case No. 74–179–CF and Case No. 79–3126–CFA02.

In his response to the order to show cause, Hastings argues that he should not be sanctioned for diligently pursuing postconviction relief. Hastings contends that his lengthy pro se filing history in this Court is the result of his lack of legal sophistication and the failure of the lower courts to timely correct his allegedly illegal sentences. In addition, Hastings asserts that not all of his pro se filings in this Court pertained to his convictions and sentences, and that a portion of his filings with this Court concerned parole and gain-time matters.

Upon due consideration of Hastings' response, we find that his arguments are without merit. Hastings' voluminous pro se filing history with this Court has necessitated our scrutiny.³ After...