Pettway v. McNeil
Decision Date | 22 May 2008 |
Docket Number | No. SC07-2012.,SC07-2012. |
Citation | 987 So.2d 20 |
Parties | John E. PETTWAY, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John Everett Pettway, pro se, Raiford, FL, for Petitioner.
John E. Pettway, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 For several years Pettway has been seeking, in vain, relief from alleged illegal sentences imposed by the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pasco County, Florida in Case No. 92-3445CFAES. Pettway's instant petition also seeks relief from an alleged illegal sentence.
According to Pettway's petition, he was tried by a jury and convicted on one count of burglary and two counts of lewd and lascivious assault on a child less than sixteen years old. On July 13, 1993, the trial court sentenced Pettway to a term of life imprisonment for the burglary conviction and concurrent terms of fifteen years' imprisonment for the lewd and lascivious assault convictions. On December 9, 1994, the Second District Court of Appeal, per curiam, affirmed the trial court's judgments of guilt and sentences. See Pettway v. State, 650 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (table).
Since Pettway's convictions and sentences became final, he has filed numerous petitions in this and other courts. The Second District Court of Appeal has previously barred Pettway from filing any petitions for extraordinary writ relief related to his convictions and sentences unless such requests for relief are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Pettway v. State, 725 So.2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), review denied, 735 So.2d 1286 (Fla.1999).
In March 2000, we transferred Pettway's pro se petition that alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to the Second District Court of Appeal. In April 2000, the clerk of court for the district court informed Pettway by letter that the petition transferred by this Court would not be considered based on the order issued in Pettway, 725 So.2d 428. Afterward, Pettway moved this Court to enforce our previous transfer order, which we denied by written opinion. See Pettway v. State, 776 So.2d 930 (Fla.2000). In Pettway, we concluded that Id. at 931. Since that opinion issued, Pettway has filed numerous other filings in this Court, which are outlined below.
On October 8, 2007, Pettway filed the instant petition; he also filed a supplement to the petition on or about January 29, 2008. After considering the petition, on February 15, 2008, the Court issued an order denying Pettway's petition in this case as procedurally barred. In so doing, the Court expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Pettway. On the same day, the Court ordered Pettway to show cause why the Clerk of this Court should not be directed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, letters, documents, or other filings submitted to this Court by him relating to his convictions and sentences in Case No. 92-3445CFAES.
In his response to the order to show cause, Pettway argues that the Court should refrain from barring him for several reasons. First, he argues that even if the State argued that his illegal sentence claim is successive or procedurally barred, the Court can readily recognize this as a meritorious claim. Second, he maintains that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet was badly miscalculated. Third, he contends that but for the scoresheet miscalculation he would have been eligible for sentencing of a duration less than the life imprisonment sentence that he received. Fourth, he requests that this Court invite the State to refute the merits of his illegal sentence claim. Fifth, he expresses regret for any misuse of the Court's limited judicial resources; nonetheless, he urges the Court to grant him due consideration on his illegal sentence claim. Finally, he asserts that manifest injustice will persist if this Court permits his present life sentence to stand.
Since 1995, Pettway has initiated twenty separate proceedings in this Court, including this petition, involving his convictions and sentences entered by the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pasco County, Florida, in Case No. 92-3445CFAES. The Court has never granted Pettway the relief he has requested. See Pettway v. State, No. SC07-1559 (Fla. Aug. 20, 2007) ( ); Pettway v. State, 962 So.2d 337 (Fla.2007) ( ); Pettway v. State, No. SC05-1162 (Fla. Jun. 16, 2005) ( ); Pettway v. State, 895 So.2d 1067 (Fla.2005) (table) ( ); Pettway v. Crosby, 895 So.2d 406 (Fla. 2005) ( ); Pettway v. State, 895 So.2d 406 (Fla.2005) (table) ( ); Pettway v. State, No. SC01-1044 ( ); Pettway v. State, 776 So.2d 930 (Fla.2000) ( ); Pettway v. State, 776 So.2d 276 (Fla.2000) (table) (review denied); Pettway v. Moore, 761 So.2d 330 (Fla.1999) (table) ( ); Pettway v. Moore, 740 So.2d 528 (Fla.1999) (table) ( ); Pettway v State, 735 So.2d 1286 (Fla.1999) (table) (review denied); Pettway v. State, 729 So.2d 393 (Fla.1999) (table) ( ); Pettway v. Singletary, 697 So.2d 511 (Fla.1997) (table) ( ); Pettway v. State, 670 So.2d 939 (Fla.1996) (table) ( ); Pettway v. Singletary, 669 So.2d 251 (Fla.1996) (table) ( ); Pettway v. Singletary, 664 So.2d 249 (Fla.1995) (table) ( ); Pettway v. Singletary, 664 So.2d 249 (Fla.1995) (table) ( ); Pettway v. State, 659 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1995) (table) ( ).
These petitions were either, like the instant petition, devoid of merit or inappropriate for review in this Court. Pettway's response to this Court's order to show cause leaves considerable doubt that his asserted remorse about misusing the limited judicial resources is sincere. Pettway's renewed assertion that his illegal sentence claim must be addressed here is contrary to our determination that the claim is procedurally barred. There is a strong inference that unless he is stopped, Pettway will continue filing nonmeritorious requests for relief in this Court regarding his illegal sentence claim. Thus, we conclude that Pettway has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.
This Court and the United States Supreme Court have, when deemed necessary, exercised the inherent judicial authority to sanction an abusive litigant. See, e.g., Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992); In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed.2d 599 (1991); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); Tate v. McNeil, 983 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2008); Sibley v. Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm'n, 973 So.2d 425 (Fla.2006); Lanier v. State, 908 So.2d 332 (Fla.2005); Jean v. State, 906 So.2d 1055 (Fla.2005); Armstead v. State, 817 So.2d 841 (Fla.2002); Peterson v. State, 817 So.2d 838 (Fla.2002); Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 790 So.2d 398 (Fla.2001); Rivera v. State, 728 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1998); Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1995).
One justification for such a sanction lies in the protection of the rights of others to have the Court conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings. See Martin, 506 U.S. at 3, 113 S.Ct. 397 ( ); see also Peterson, 817 So.2d at 840 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hickmon v. Jones, SC17–997
...inappropriate for this Court's review, we now find that he has abused this Court's limited judicial resources. See Pettway v. McNeil , 987 So.2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008) (explaining that this Court has previously "exercised the inherent judicial authority to sanction an abusive litigant" and that......
-
Steele v. State
...498 U.S. 177, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed.2d 599 (1991); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008); Tate v. McNeil, 983 So.2d 502 (Fla.2008); Sibley v. Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm'n, 973 So.2d 425 (Fla.2006); Lanier v. State, 908 So......
-
Smith v. Jones, SC15–2191.
...75 So.3d 231 (Fla.2011) ; Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So.3d 1080 (Fla.2011) ; Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221 (Fla.2009) ; Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20...
-
Blaxton v. State
...Tucker, 75 So.3d 231 (Fla.2011) ; Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So.3d 1080 (Fla.2011) ; Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221 (Fla.2009) ; Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008).4 See, e.g., Clark, 159 So.3d at 123 ; McCutcheon, 117 So.3d at 771 ; James, 75 So.3d at 232 ; Johnson, 59 So.3d at 1080 ; St......