# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC1 9

- 1978

____________ VICTOR HICKS , Petitioner,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. May 7, 2020 PER CURIAM. This case is before the Cour t on the petition of Victor Hicks for a writ of mandamus . We have jur isdi ction

. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. On F ebruary 18, 2020, we dismiss ed the instant petition and expressly retained jur isdict ion to pursue possible sanctions against Hicks. Hicks v. State , No . SC19

- 1978, 2020 WL 819275 (Fla. Feb. 18, 2020) ; see Fl a. R. Ap p. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion ). We now find that Hicks has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, and we sanction him as set forth below. Hick s was convicted in the Ninth Judicial Cir cuit (Orang e County) o f one count of lew d an d la s civious con du ct by a person over eightee n years of age on a- 2

- victim u nder sixteen y ears of age in case num ber 482013CF016529000AOX . He was sentenced to six yea rs, five months, and el even days’ impriso nment on February 12, 2016

. Hicks was relea se d from cu stody in 20 19

. Hicks began filing petitio ns with the Court in 2016. Since that time, he has filed thirteen pro se requests for relief in this Court related to case numbe r 482013CF016529000AOX

. 1 We h ave never granted the relief sough t in any of Hicks ’ fil ings, which have all been denied, dismiss ed, or transfer red to another court for consideration; his petition in this case is no exception. Hicks filed the in stant ma ndamus petition on No vember 2 5, 201 9. In it, he alleged that the Ninth Judicia l C ircuit C our t failed to follow Florida Rule of Cri minal Procedure 3.85 0 by not filing a copy of an order denying Hicks ’ second postconviction mo tion with the Clerk of Court . As relief, Hicks sought a wri t of m andamus compelling the circuit court to comp ly with the requirements of the rule

. The Court dis missed the petition pursuant to Pettway v. State , 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000) (determining that the Court “will generally not consider the repetitive petiti ons of persons who have abused the judicial processes o f the lower courts such th at they have be en barred from filing certain actions there.”) , and directed Hicks to show cause why he shou ld not be b arred from filing any further pro se requests for re lief in this

1

. See Hicks v. State , No. SC19

- 1978, 2020 WL 819275 (Fla. Feb. 18, 2020)

.- 3

- Court related t o circuit court case numbe r 4820 13CF016529000AOX

. Hicks failed to file a response to the order to s how cause. Therefore, based on Hicks ’ history of filing pro se petitions and requests for relief that are meritless or otherwis e ina ppropriate fo r this Court ’ s r eview, we now fi nd that he has abused this 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 sanct ion an abusiv e litigant” and that “[o]ne just ification for such a sanction lies in the protectio n of the rights of others to have the Court conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings”). Hicks did not respond to the order to show cause, thus f ailin g to offer an y justificatio n for his repeated misuse of this Court’s resou rces. We are therefore convinced that if not restrained, Hicks will continue to abuse the judici al process and burden this Court (and thereby harm other litigants) with frivolous and meritl ess f ili n gs pertai ning to circu it cou rt case nu mber 482013CF 016529000AOX

. Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Victor H icks that pertain to circuit court case number 482013 CF016 529000AOX , un less such filings a re signed by a member i n good standing of The Florida Bar. Henc eforth, Hicks may only petition the Court about his convictions or sentences in case number 482013CF016529000AOX through the assistance of counsel whenever such- 4

- counsel dete rmi n es that the pro ceeding m a y have merit and can be filed in good faith. No motio n for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by this Court. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABAR GA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. Original Proceeding

– Habeas Corpus Victor Hicks , pro se, Orlando , Florida, for Petitioner No appearance for Respondent