Title: Broom v. Tucker, etc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC11-2313
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 3, 2012

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC11-2313 
____________ 
 
ANTHONY W. BROOM,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
KENNETH S. TUCKER, etc.,  
Respondent. 
 
[May 3, 2012] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Anthony W. Broom, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for 
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We dismissed the petition in this case by way of an unpublished order, determining 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. 
 
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 - 
In disposing of the petition in this case, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue 
possible sanctions against Broom.3  See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a). 
 
Broom was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for committing 
second-degree murder in Polk County, Florida (Case No. CF81-1860-A1XX).  
Broom appealed his conviction and sentence to the Second District Court of 
Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of guilt and the sentence imposed.  Broom v. 
State, 422 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (table decision).  Since his criminal case 
became final Broom has filed numerous postconviction cases, to no avail.4  It is 
patently evident from the record before this Court that Broom’s criminal case has 
been fully litigated in the appropriate courts below, to no avail for him.   
                                         
 
3.  Broom v. Tucker, No. SC11-2313 (Fla. Feb. 6, 2012) (dismissing the 
petition and ordering petitioner to show cause why sanctions should not be 
imposed and why the petition should not be deemed frivolous). 
 
4.  See, e.g., Broom v. State, 28 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (No. 2D10-
285) (dismissing habeas corpus petition) (table decision); Broome [sic] v. State, 
790 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (No. 2D01-1322) (affirming the judgment 
denying a motion for postconviction relief); Broom v. State, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 
2d DCA 1987) (No. 87-608) (affirming the judgment denying a motion to vacate 
conviction and sentence); Broom v. State, 487 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (No. 
86-538) (affirming the judgment denying a motion for postconviction relief) (table 
decision). 
 
 
- 3 - 
 
Since 1988, Petitioner has filed multiple extraordinary writ petitions with 
this Court seeking relief from the results of his criminal case.  And in none of the 
petitions Broom filed in this Court has any relief been granted to him.5   
Because the petition filed in this case was dismissed as unauthorized and was also 
his seventh extraordinary writ petition pertaining to his criminal case, we issued an 
order directing Broom to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing 
any further pro se filings in this Court related to case number CF81-1860-A1XX.6  
However, Broom chose not to file a response to our order.  By disregarding our 
order to show cause, Broom has left us to conclude that his unauthorized petition is 
a frivolous proceeding brought to this Court by a prisoner.  See § 944.279, Fla. 
Stat. (2011).  We take notice that Broom has compiled a history of pro se filings in 
                                         
 
5.  See Broom v. State, 54 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2011) (No. SC10-2049) (habeas 
corpus petition – dismissed pursuant to Baker); Broom v. State, 53 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 
2011) (No. SC10-2059) (mandamus petition – denied); Broom v. McDonough, 965 
So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2007) (No. SC07-1350) (habeas corpus petition – dismissed 
pursuant to Baker); Broom v. Crosby, 929 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2006) (No. SC05-
1917) (Fla. 2006) (habeas corpus petition – dismissed pursuant to Baker); Broom 
v. State, No. SC02-2212 (Fla. May 21, 2003) (habeas corpus petition– transferred 
to circuit court); Broom v. Moore, No. SC01-1187 (Fla. Oct. 1, 2001) (habeas 
corpus petition – transferred to circuit court); Broom v. Singletary, 718 So. 2d 166 
(Fla. 1998) (No. 92,995) (habeas corpus petition – denied); Broom v. District 
Court of Appeal, Second District, 525 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1988) (Case No. 72,249) 
(prohibition petition – denied). 
 
6.  See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla. 1999) (stating prior to 
the imposition of sanctions, a court must afford the litigant a meaningful 
opportunity to show cause why the sanctions are inappropriate). 
 
 
- 4 - 
this Court that, like the instant habeas corpus petition, were devoid of merit or 
inappropriate for review in this Court.   
 
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future 
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Anthony W. 
Broom that are related to case number CF81-1860-A1XX, unless such filings are 
signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.  Counsel may file on 
Broom’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can 
be brought in good faith.7  Furthermore, since we have found Broom’s petition to 
be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), 
Florida Statutes (2011), to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the 
Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where Broom is incarcerated.8 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
                                         
 
7.  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). 
 
8.  See, e.g., James, 75 So. 3d at 232; Johnson, 59 So. 3d at 1080; Steele, 14 
So. 3d at 221. 
 
 
- 5 - 
 
 
Original Proceedings – Habeas Corpus 
 
Anthony W. Broom, pro se, May, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Jennifer Alani Parker, General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent