Title: Stewart v. Dixon

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC22-654 
____________ 
 
ARSENIO STEWART, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
RICKY D. DIXON, etc., 
Respondent. 
 
December 1, 2022 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
 
This case is before the Court on the petition of Arsenio Stewart 
for a writ of habeas corpus.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 
3(b)(9), Fla. Const.  By order dated August 10, 2022, we dismissed 
Stewart’s petition as unauthorized pursuant to Baker v. State, 878 
So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).  Stewart v. Dixon, No. SC22-654, 2022 WL 
3221953 (Fla. Aug. 10, 2022).  Concurrent with the dismissal of the 
petition, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible 
sanctions against Stewart.  Id.; see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) 
(Sanctions; Court’s Motion). 
 
- 2 - 
 
Stewart was convicted in the Seventh Judicial Circuit (Putnam 
County) on one count of gun possession by a convicted felon (case 
number 542013CF000126CFAXMX).  He was sentenced to fifteen 
years’ imprisonment on December 3, 2013.  The Fifth District Court 
of Appeal per curiam affirmed the judgment and sentence on July 
7, 2015.  Stewart v. State, 171 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) 
(table). 
 
Since 2016, Stewart has filed seven petitions or notices related 
to his conviction and sentence in the above-noted circuit court case.  
We have never granted the relief sought in any of Stewart’s filings, 
which have all been dismissed or transferred by the Court.  Four of 
these pleadings have raised the exact same claim for relief found in 
the instant habeas petition, in which Stewart argued that his 
fifteen-year sentence is inconsistent with the terms of his plea 
agreement.  We dismissed the petition as unauthorized and directed 
Stewart to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any 
further requests for relief and referred to the Department of 
Corrections for possible disciplinary action pursuant to section 
944.279, Florida Statutes (2022). 
 
- 3 - 
 
Stewart filed a response to the Court’s order in which he 
argues that sanctions would be improper because the merits of his 
claim have not been addressed.  He further asserts that rather than 
prohibiting him from further pro se filings, the Court should grant 
relief from his allegedly illegal sentence. 
 
Upon consideration of Stewart’s response, we find that his 
arguments are without merit and that he has failed to show cause 
why sanctions should not be imposed.  Therefore, based on 
Stewart’s extensive history of filing pro se petitions and requests for 
relief that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s 
review, we find that he has abused the 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 “[o]ne 
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”).  If no action is taken, Stewart will continue to burden the 
Court’s resources.  We further conclude that Stewart’s habeas 
petition filed in this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before 
the Court by a state prisoner.  See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2022). 
 
- 4 - 
 
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any 
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Arsenio 
Stewart that are related to case number 542013CF000126CFAXMX, 
unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The 
Florida Bar.  Furthermore, because we have found Stewart’s 
petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant 
to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2022), to forward a copy of 
this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or 
facility in which Stewart is incarcerated. 
 
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by 
this Court. 
 
It is so ordered. 
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, COURIEL, 
GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus 
 
Arsenio Stewart, pro se, Raiford, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
No appearance for Respondent