FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3325

_____________________________

HOWARD ANTHONY BIESER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

October 24, 2019

B.L. THOMAS.

The Appellant, Howard Anthony Bieser, appeals from an 

order denying his postconviction motion brought pursuant to 

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial 

court’s denial but write to discuss the Appellant’s abusive filing 

history in this Court and impose sanctions.

The Appellant was originally charged with committing a lewd 

and lascivious act upon a child. In May of 1993, he pleaded nolo 

contendere to the charge and sentencing was deferred until a later 

date. Six days before his scheduled sentencing hearing, he filed a 

pro se motion to withdraw plea. The trial court granted the motion. 

Subsequently, the State filed an amended information charging 

the Appellant with capital sexual battery on a child under 12 years 

of age (count I) and a lewd and lascivious act upon a child (count 
2

II). On November 2, 1993, the Appellant was convicted as charged 

after a jury trial. On December 21, 1993, he was sentenced to life 

in prison on count I. He was not adjudicated guilty or sentenced on 

count II. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, 

with the mandate issuing on March 28, 1995. See Bieser v. State, 

651 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (Table).

Since the Appellant’s conviction and sentence became final, he 

has filed numerous postconviction motions, appeals, and petitions. 

In addition to the two rule 3.850 motions at issue in the instant 

appeal, the Appellant has filed five rule 3.850 motions and two 

motions to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The denial of those motions resulted 

in five postconviction appeals. See Bieser v. State, 677 So. 2d 59 

(Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Bieser v. State, 706 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1998) (Table); Bieser v. State, Case No. 1D96-2289; Bieser v. State, 

Case No. 1D05-4662; Bieser v. State, 160 So. 3d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA

2015). He has received no substantive relief in any of these cases 

aside from the reversal of the summary denial of two claims. See

Bieser, 677 So. 2d at 59. The order denying those claims after an 

evidentiary hearing was subsequently affirmed on appeal. See

Bieser, 706 So. 2d at 287. The Appellant has also filed a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, which was denied. See

Bieser v. State, 845 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

A review of these postconviction motions, appeals, and 

petitions reveals a pattern of filing repetitive, untimely, and 

successive claims. The Appellant has raised the same double 

jeopardy claim on four separate occasions. Twice, he challenged 

the information as fundamentally defective. On three occasions, 

his rule 3.850 motions were untimely and failed to establish a valid 

exception to the time limitation. Four of his rule 3.850 motions 

were successive without establishing good cause for the violation 

of the prohibition against successive rule 3.850 motions. 

In the instant appeal, the Appellant asked this Court to 

review an order denying two rule 3.850 motions: the Appellant’s 

fourth rule 3.850 motion, originally filed on September 9, 1996,*

 * The trial court had previously overlooked the fourth rule 

3.850 motion. The motion came to the trial court’s attention during 

its consideration of the seventh rule 3.850 motion, and therefore 
3

and his seventh rule 3.850 motion, which was filed on March 5, 

2018. The claims raised in these motions were either untimely, 

successive, not cognizable in a postconviction proceeding, or some 

combination of the three.

This Court has the inherent authority to sanction an abusive 

litigant whose pattern of frivolous and repetitive filings consume 

scarce judicial resources and delay the resolution of legitimate 

filings. See Armstead v. State, 817 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla. 2002); Hall 

v. State, 94 So. 3d 656, 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Here, given the 

Appellant’s obvious abuse of the judicial process, we can think of 

no grounds that would explain or excuse his excessive frivolous 

filings and we need not allow him an opportunity to attempt to 

explain or excuse them. Therefore, we hold that the Appellant is 

barred from further pro se filings in this Court related to the 

judgment and sentence in Bay County Circuit Court case number 

1993-CF-0130. The Clerk of Court is directed not to accept any 

future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a 

member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Any filings that 

violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the 

appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in 

section 944.279, Florida Statutes. 

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Howard Anthony Bieser, pro se, Appellant.

 

the trial court issued a single order denying both the fourth and 

seventh motions.
4

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.