Court Opinion

ID: 9838663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 15:06:12.764908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:39.171726
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Florida
                            ____________

                         No. SC2023-0268
                           ____________

                         KEITH L. CALVIN,
                            Petitioner,

                                 vs.

                       STATE OF FLORIDA,
                          Respondent.

                         September 7, 2023

PER CURIAM.

     Keith L. Calvin, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se

petition with this Court seeking a writ of mandamus. 1 On April 27,

2023, we dismissed the instant petition, expressly retained

jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Calvin, and

directed Calvin to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for

his repeated misuse of this Court’s limited resources. Calvin v.

State, No. SC2023-0268, 2023 WL 3117265 (Fla. Apr. 27, 2023);

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

     1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const.
find that Calvin has failed to show cause why he should not be

barred, and we sanction him as set forth below.

     Calvin was convicted of second-degree murder in the Circuit

Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and for Marion County,

Florida, case number 422004CF000536CFAXXX, and was

sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to life imprisonment

on September 12, 2006. On October 30, 2007, the Fifth District

Court of Appeal per curiam affirmed Calvin’s conviction and

sentence. Calvin v. State, 969 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)

(table). A corrected judgment of conviction and sentence was

entered on March 23, 2009.

     Since 2009, Calvin has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious

filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court related to

case number 422004CF000536CFAXXX. Including the petition in

the instant case, Calvin has filed eight pro se petitions with this

Court. 2 The Court has never granted Calvin the relief sought in any

of his filings here; all the petitions were dismissed or denied, with

      2. See Calvin v. State, No. SC2023-0268, 2023 WL 3117265
*1 (Fla. Apr. 27, 2023).

                                  -2-
the exception of one that was transferred. His petition in this case

is no exception. Calvin reasserted his previously raised claim that

the State was barred from prosecuting the charge against him

because the applicable statute of limitations in effect at the time of

his crime had expired. 3 On April 27, 2023, we denied the instant

petition and directed Calvin to show cause why he should not be

barred from filing any further pro se requests for relief in this

Court.

     In response to this Court’s show cause order, Calvin maintains

that his conviction is unlawful, and that he has a constitutional

right to merits review by this Court of his underlying claim.

     Upon consideration of Calvin’s response, we find that he has

failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Therefore, based on Calvin’s extensive history of filing pro se

petitions and requests for relief that were meritless or otherwise

      3. Calvin raised essentially the same claim in habeas petitions
previously filed in the Court, including case numbers SC2020-0430
(Baker dismissal), SC2017-0351 (Pettway dismissal), SC2015-1955
(Baker dismissal), and SC2014-1464 (Baker dismissal), as well as in
a petition to invoke the Court’s all writs jurisdiction (case number
SC2012-2228; denied for lack of jurisdiction).

                                 -3-
inappropriate for this Court’s review, we now find that he has

abused the 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 sanction

an abusive litigant” and that “[o]ne justification for such a sanction

lies in the protection of the rights of others to have the Court

conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings”). If no action is

taken, Calvin will continue to burden the Court’s resources. We

further conclude that Calvin’s mandamus petition filed in this case

is a frivolous proceeding brought before the Court by a state

prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2022).

     Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Keith L.

Calvin that are related to case number 422004CF000536CFAXXX,

unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The

Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Calvin’s petition

to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to

section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2022), to forward a copy of this

opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or

facility in which Calvin is incarcerated.

                                  -4-
     No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by

this Court.

     It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ.,
concur.
COURIEL and GROSSHANS, JJ., dissent.

Original Proceeding – Mandamus

Keith L. Calvin, pro se, Milton, Florida,

     for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

                                 -5-