Title: Foley v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC2022-1577 
____________ 
 
ARTHUR WILLIS FOLEY, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
May 18, 2023 
 
PER CURIAM. 
Arthur Willis Foley, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se 
petition for writ of mandamus with this Court challenging his 
Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentence.1  We dismissed the 
petition, retained jurisdiction, and directed Foley to show cause 
why he should not be sanctioned for his repeated misuse of our 
limited resources.  Foley v. State, No. SC2022-1577, 2023 WL 
1795173 (Fla. Feb. 7, 2023); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; 
Court’s Motion).  Foley responded to our show cause order.  We now 
 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. 
 
- 2 - 
find that Foley has failed to show cause why he should not be 
barred, and we sanction him as set forth below. 
Foley was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh 
Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, of robbery with a 
weapon and trafficking in stolen property (case number 
131999CF0376080001XX).  He was sentenced to life in prison as a 
Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR).  The Third District Court of 
Appeal affirmed on direct appeal Petitioner’s convictions and his 
PRR sentence on the robbery with a weapon count.  Foley v. State, 
804 So. 2d 556, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).  However, the Third 
District reversed Foley’s PRR sentence on the trafficking in stolen 
property count and remanded the case with instructions to impose 
a “guideline sentence.”  Id. at 557. 
Since 2003, Foley has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious 
filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court related to 
his convictions and sentences.  Including the petition in this case, 
Foley has filed nineteen pro se petitions with this Court.2  The 
 
 
2.  See Foley v. State, No. SC2022-1577, 2023 WL 1795173 
(Fla. Feb. 7, 2023). 
 
- 3 - 
Court has never granted Foley the relief sought in any of his filings 
here; each of the petitions was dismissed or denied.  His petition in 
this case is no exception.  Foley challenged the legality of his PRR 
sentence and requested that the Court issue a writ of mandamus 
directing the circuit court to issue an order appointing a public 
defender to file a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 
3.800(a) on his behalf because he has been pro se barred in the 
circuit court.  Because we “will generally not consider the repetitive 
petitions of persons who have abused the judicial processes of the 
lower courts such that they have been barred from filing certain 
actions there,” we dismissed the instant petition under Pettway v. 
State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000), and directed Foley to show 
cause why he should not be barred from filing any further pro se 
requests for relief in this Court. 
Foley filed a response to the show cause order in which he 
continues to challenge his PRR sentence and assert that being pro 
se barred does not prohibit a reviewing court from appointing him 
counsel.  In his response, he failed to express any remorse for his 
repeated misuse of this Court’s limited resources nor state that he 
would abstain from further frivolous filings in this Court.  Upon 
 
- 4 - 
consideration of Foley’s response, we find that he has failed to show 
cause why sanctions should not be imposed.  Therefore, based on 
Foley’s extensive history of filing pro se petitions and requests for 
relief that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s 
review, we now 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, Foley will continue to burden the 
Court’s resources.  We further conclude that Foley’s mandamus 
petition filed in this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before 
the Court by a state prisoner.  See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2022). 
 
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any 
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by 
Arthur Willis Foley that are related to case number 
131999CF0376080001XX, unless such filings are signed by a 
member in good standing of The Florida Bar.  Furthermore, because 
we have found Foley’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of 
 
- 5 - 
this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), to forward a copy of this 
opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or 
facility in which Foley is incarcerated. 
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by 
this Court. 
It is so ordered. 
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, 
and FRANCIS, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Mandamus 
 
Arthur Willis Foley, pro se, Live Oak, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
No appearance for Respondent