Case ID: so3d_239/html/1287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Charles RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2436
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 4, 2018
    William Charles Richardson, in proper person.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
    Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
    ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
   PER CURIAM.

On February 21, 2018, the Court affirmed the denial of William Richardson's petition for writ of habeas corpus. On the same date, the Court ordered Richardson to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, motions, or other pleadings in this Court relating to lower tribunal case F75-11762.

Upon consideration of Richardson's response to the order to show cause and the successive, duplicative, pro se petitions and appeals brought by Richardson, we conclude that good cause has not been shown. Richardson 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.

In accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999), and Concepcion v. State, 944 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), Richardson is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his conviction, judgment, and sentence in lower tribunal case F75-11762. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to the 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 Richardson 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). 
      
      Richardson failed to provide any response that would justify such filings; see the trial court's orders in the circuit court case entered October 13, 2017, June 24, 2016, September 24, 2015, and April 12, 2013, as well as this Court's opinions and orders in Case Nos. 3D17-2051, 3D16-2162, 3D16-1825, 3D15-1936, 3D15-530, and 3D13-2045.