Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC13-513

____________

JEROME K. LOCKHART A/K/A GREGORY TYRONE HARRIS,

Petitioner,

vs.

MICHAEL D. CREWS, etc., 

Respondent.

[January 23, 2014]

PER CURIAM.

Jerome K. Lockhart A/K/A Gregory Tyrone Harris, an inmate in state 

custody, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this Court 

challenging his conviction and sentence.1

 We dismissed the petition in this case by 

way of an unpublished order, determining that it was unauthorized pursuant to 

Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).2

 

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.

 Lockhart v. Crews, 2013 WL 

2. See id. at 1238 (“We further conclude that we should not continue 

denying [] petitions [that attack the results of a petitioner’s criminal case(s)] either 

on the merits or on grounds that the claims raised are procedurally barred from 

being considered in collateral postconviction relief proceedings. Instead, we 

conclude that we should dismiss such petitions as unauthorized.”).
- 2 -

3388380 *1 (Fla. Jun. 27, 2013). In disposing of the petition in this case, we 

expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Lockhart.3

Lockhart was convicted and sentenced to thirty years in prison for robbery 

by the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough 

County, Florida (Case No. 01-CF-019518). Lockhart appealed his conviction and 

sentence to the Second District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of 

guilt and the sentence imposed. Harris v. State, 873 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2004) (table decision).

 Id.; 

see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). 

Following his direct appeal, Lockhart filed numerous postconviction claims 

to no avail. Because the petition filed in this case was Lockhart’s twenty-seventh 

petition for review or extraordinary writ petition pertaining to his criminal case 

filed in this Court,4

 

3. Lockhart v. Crews, No. SC13-513 (Fla. order filed June 27, 2013) 

(dismissing the petition and ordering petitioner to show cause why sanctions 

should not be imposed and why the petition should not be deemed frivolous).

we issued an order directing Lockhart to show cause why he 

4. See Lockhart v. State, 114 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 2013) (table decision) (all 

writs petition dismissed); Lockhart v. Crews, 109 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 2013) (table 

decision) (habeas corpus petition dismissed); Lockhart v. Crews, 108 So. 3d 655 

(Fla. 2013) (table decision) (habeas corpus petition dismissed); Lockhart v. State, 

104 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2012) (table decision) (petition for review dismissed); 

Lockhart v. State, 103 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 2012) (table decision) (petition for review 

dismissed); Lockhart v. Tucker, 72 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 2011) (table decision) (habeas 

corpus petition dismissed); Lockhart v. State, 69 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 2011) (table 

decision) (petition for review dismissed); Lockhart v. State, 49 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. 
- 3 -

should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se filings in this Court related 

to case number 01-CF-019518.5

 

2010) (table decision) (mandamus petition denied); Lockhart v. State, 55 So. 3d 

1287 (Fla. 2010) (table decision) (mandamus petition dismissed); Lockhart v. 

State, 49 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 2010) (table decision) (mandamus petition denied); 

Harris v. State, 47 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 2010) (table decision) (mandamus petition 

denied); Lockhart v. State, 44 So. 3d 581 (Fla. 2010) (table decision) (petition for 

review dismissed); Lockhart v. State, 43 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 2010) (table decision) 

(petition for review dismissed); Harris v. McNeil, 5 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 2009) (table 

decision) (petition for review dismissed); Lockhart v. McNeil, 4 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 

2009) (table decision) (mandamus petition denied); Lockhart v. State, Case No. 

SC08-839 (Fla. May 6, 2008) (mandamus petition dismissed); Harris v. State, 991 

So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2008) (table decision) (petition for review dismissed); Harris v. 

McDonough, 941 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2006) (table decision) (habeas corpus petition 

dismissed); Harris v. Crist, 939 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2006) (table decision) (petition for 

review dismissed); Harris v. Crist, Case No. SC06-540 (Fla. July 12, 2006) (quo 

warranto petition transferred to the district court); Harris v. State, 935 So. 2d 499 

(Fla. 2006) (table decision) (petition for review dismissed); Harris v. Crist, 930 So. 

2d 621 (Fla. 2006) (table decision) (quo warranto petition dismissed); Harris v. 

State, 924 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2006) (table decision) (mandamus petition denied); 

Harris v. State, 917 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2005) (table decision) (petition for review 

dismissed); Harris v. State, 915 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2005) (table decision) (petition 

for review dismissed); Harris v. State, 871 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2004) (table decision) 

(petition for review dismissed). 

 Lockhart did not file a response explaining why 

the Court should not impose sanctions or expressing remorse for his substantial 

abuse of the Court’s resources. Instead, he used his opportunity to explain his 

actions to the Court to file multiple handwritten “motions” in which he again 

asserts the same challenges to the legality of his conviction and sentence that he 

has presented in other filings that have been repeatedly denied, dismissed, or 

5. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla. 1999) (stating that prior 

to the imposition of sanctions, a court must afford the litigant a meaningful 

opportunity to show cause why the sanctions are inappropriate).
- 4 -

transferred. All of these motions are hereby denied. After considering Lockhart’s 

response, we conclude that it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be 

imposed. We further conclude that Lockhart’s procedurally barred petition filed in 

this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before this Court by a state prisoner. 

See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future 

pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Jerome K. 

Lockhart A/K/A Gregory Tyrone Harris that are related to case number 01-CF019518, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The 

Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Lockhart’s behalf if counsel determines that the 

proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.6

 Furthermore, 

because we have found Lockhart’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of 

this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2013), to forward a 

certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections’ institution or 

facility where Lockhart is incarcerated.7

 

6. In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants 

whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing scarce 

judicial resources in this Court. See, e.g., James v. 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); Tate v. McNeil, 

983 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2008).

7. See, e.g., James, 75 So. 3d at 232; Johnson, 59 So. 3d at 1080; Steele, 14 

So. 3d at 221.
- 5 -

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA and 

PERRY, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 

IF FILED, DETERMINED. 

Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus

Jerome K. Lockhart a/k/a Gregory Tyrone Harris, pro se, Live Oak, Florida,

for Petitioner,

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Christina Zuccaro, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, and Jennifer A. Parker, General 

Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Respondent