Title: Williams v. Crews
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC12-1986
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: April 3, 2014

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC12-1986 
____________ 
 
DONALD WILLIAMS  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
MICHAEL D. CREWS, etc.  
Respondent. 
 
[April 3, 2014] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Donald Williams, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ 
of habeas corpus with this Court challenging his convictions and sentences in State 
v. Williams, Case No. F02-37491B.1  By order dated August 28, 2013, we 
dismissed Williams’ petition.  Williams v. Crews, 123 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 2013) 
(table decision).2
                                          
 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. 
  Concurrent with the dismissal of Williams’ petition, we 
 
2.  See Pettway v. State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000) (stating that the 
Court generally will not consider the repetitive petitions of persons who have 
 
- 2 - 
expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Williams.  Id.; 
see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion).   
 
Williams was convicted of five counts of kidnapping, five counts of robbery, 
two counts of aggravated battery, one count of burglary, and one count of 
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.  In 2005, the Circuit Court of the 
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, sentenced 
Williams to a fifteen-year term on the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon 
count, to a thirty-year term on each of the aggravated battery counts, and to life in 
prison on each of the remaining counts.  The Third District Court of Appeal 
affirmed Williams’ convictions and sentences in a per curiam opinion dated 
October 18, 2006.  Williams v. State, 941 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (table 
decision).  After his convictions and sentences became final, Williams filed 
numerous pro se filings in this and other courts.  Williams’ substantial filing 
history in the courts below has resulted in him being barred from filing any further 
pro se filings in both the circuit court and the district court.  Williams v. State, 106 
So. 3d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Order Prohibiting the Defendant From Filing Any 
Further Postconviction Motions Without the Approval and Signature of an 
                                                                                                                                        
abused the judicial processes of the lower courts such that they have been barred 
from filing certain actions there). 
 
- 3 - 
Attorney Licensed in the State of Florida, State v. Williams, No. F02-37491B (Fla. 
11th Cir. Ct. Apr. 7, 2009). 
 
Because Williams’ petition in this case contained false information3 and 
because Williams has filed eleven extraordinary writ petitions with this Court since 
2012,4
                                          
 
 
3.  In his statement of case and facts Williams affirmatively asserted that 
“[p]etitioner is not prohibited for filing any pro se motion in the 11th Judicial 
Circuit Court without a licensed attorney, nor would the 11th Judicial Circuit Court 
accept jurisdiction of no motion to transfer to its court.”  Yet, contrary to his 
assertion, the circuit court entered an order on April 7, 2009, prohibiting Williams 
from filing any future pro se requests for post-conviction relief.  Order Prohibiting 
the Defendant From Filing Any Further Postconviction Motions Without the 
Approval and Signature of an Attorney Licensed in the State of Florida, State v. 
Williams, No. F02-37491B (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Apr. 7, 2009).  The Third District 
affirmed the circuit court’s order.  Williams v. State, 13 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 
2009) (table decision). 
 
4.  See Williams v. Crews, Case No. SC13-1564 (Dec. 27, 2013) (habeas 
corpus petition dismissed as unauthorized); Williams v. Crews, Case No. SC13-
1140 (Dec. 11, 2013) (habeas corpus petition dismissed as unauthorized); Williams 
v. State, 114 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2013) (table decision) (mandamus petition denied); 
Williams v. State, 114 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2013) (table decision) (mandamus petition 
dismissed); Williams v. State, 103 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 2012) (table decision) 
(mandamus petition dismissed as moot); Williams v. State, Case No. SC12-976 
(Fla. June 25, 2012) (mandamus petition transferred to the district court); Williams 
v. State, Case No. SC12-974 (Fla. June 15, 2012) (mandamus petition transferred 
to the circuit court); Williams v. Tucker, 103 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 2012) (table 
decision) (habeas corpus petition dismissed as unauthorized); Williams v. Tucker, 
90 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 2012) (table decision) (habeas corpus petition dismissed as 
unauthorized): Williams v. State, 92 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 2012) (table decision) 
(mandamus petition denied without prejudice). 
 this Court issued an order directing Williams to show cause why he should 
not be prohibited from filing any further pro se filings related to case number F02-
 
- 4 - 
37491B.5
 
Upon due consideration of Williams’ response, we find that his arguments 
are without merit and that he has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be 
imposed.  After reviewing Williams’ pro se filings, we find that each proceeding 
initiated by Williams was either devoid of merit or inappropriate for review in this 
Court.  Williams’ response shows no remorse about providing this Court with false 
information and misusing its limited judicial resources.
  This Court also directed Williams to show cause why, pursuant to 
section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, a certified copy of this Court’s findings 
should not be forwarded to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures 
pursuant to the rules of the Florida Department of Corrections.  In response to the 
order to show cause, Williams argued that sanctions should not be imposed against 
him because this Court has failed to correct the manifest injustice that he believes 
has occurred in his case.  Williams explained that his pattern of filing numerous 
extraordinary writ petitions in this Court is the result of this Court failing to 
analyze the merits of his claims, being “opinionated,” and being manipulated by 
the Attorney General’s Office.   
6
                                          
 
 
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). 
  We conclude that, unless 
 
6.  The United States Supreme Court has stated that “[e]very paper filed with 
the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some 
portion of the institution's limited resources.  A part of the Court’s responsibility is 
 
- 5 - 
he is stopped, Williams will continue to file meritless and misleading requests for 
relief in this Court regarding his convictions or sentences.   
Accordingly, we find that the petition filed by Donald Williams in this case 
contained false information and is a frivolous proceeding brought before this Court 
by a state prisoner.  See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013).  Consistent with section 
944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2013), we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a 
certified copy of this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution 
or facility where Williams is incarcerated.  See Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221, 224 
(Fla. 2009).  We also direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pleadings or 
other requests for relief submitted by Donald Williams that are related to his 
convictions or sentences in Case No. F02-37491B unless such filings are signed by 
a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.  Under the sanction herein 
imposed, Williams may only petition the Court about his convictions or sentences 
in Case No. F02-37491B through the assistance of counsel whenever such counsel 
determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be filed in good faith.   
It is so ordered. 
 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur.  
 
                                                                                                                                        
to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of 
justice.”  In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). 
 
- 6 - 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED.  
 
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus  
 
Donald A. Williams, pro se, Chipley, Florida,  
 
for Petitioner  
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Nicholas Adam 
Merlin, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida, 
 
for Respondent