Court Opinion

ID: 9395562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 15:04:45.047807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.526150
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Florida
                            ____________

                         No. SC2022-1577
                           ____________

                     ARTHUR WILLIS FOLEY,
                          Petitioner,

                                 vs.

                       STATE OF FLORIDA,
                          Respondent.

                           May 18, 2023

PER CURIAM.

     Arthur Willis Foley, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se

petition for writ of mandamus with this Court challenging his

Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentence. 1 We dismissed the

petition, retained jurisdiction, and directed Foley to show cause

why he should not be sanctioned for his repeated misuse of our

limited resources. Foley v. State, No. SC2022-1577, 2023 WL

1795173 (Fla. Feb. 7, 2023); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions;

Court’s Motion). Foley responded to our show cause order. We now

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

barred, and we sanction him as set forth below.

     Foley was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh

Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, of robbery with a

weapon and trafficking in stolen property (case number

131999CF0376080001XX). He was sentenced to life in prison as a

Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR). The Third District Court of

Appeal affirmed on direct appeal Petitioner’s convictions and his

PRR sentence on the robbery with a weapon count. Foley v. State,

804 So. 2d 556, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). However, the Third

District reversed Foley’s PRR sentence on the trafficking in stolen

property count and remanded the case with instructions to impose

a “guideline sentence.” Id. at 557.

     Since 2003, Foley has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious

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

his convictions and sentences. Including the petition in this case,

Foley has filed nineteen pro se petitions with this Court. 2 The

      2. See Foley v. State, No. SC2022-1577, 2023 WL 1795173
(Fla. Feb. 7, 2023).

                                  -2-
Court has never granted Foley the relief sought in any of his filings

here; each of the petitions was dismissed or denied. His petition in

this case is no exception. Foley challenged the legality of his PRR

sentence and requested that the Court issue a writ of mandamus

directing the circuit court to issue an order appointing a public

defender to file a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.800(a) on his behalf because he has been pro se barred in the

circuit court. Because we “will generally not consider the repetitive

petitions of persons who have abused the judicial processes of the

lower courts such that they have been barred from filing certain

actions there,” we dismissed the instant petition under Pettway v.

State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000), and directed Foley to show

cause why he should not be barred from filing any further pro se

requests for relief in this Court.

     Foley filed a response to the show cause order in which he

continues to challenge his PRR sentence and assert that being pro

se barred does not prohibit a reviewing court from appointing him

counsel. In his response, he failed to express any remorse for his

repeated misuse of this Court’s limited resources nor state that he

would abstain from further frivolous filings in this Court. Upon

                                     -3-
consideration of Foley’s response, we find that he has failed to show

cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, based on

Foley’s extensive history of filing pro se petitions and requests for

relief that were meritless or otherwise 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, Foley will continue to burden the

Court’s resources. We further conclude that Foley’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

Arthur Willis Foley that are related to case number

131999CF0376080001XX, unless such filings are signed by a

member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Furthermore, because

we have found Foley’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of

                                  -4-
this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), to forward a copy of this

opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or

facility in which Foley is incarcerated.

     No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by

this Court.

     It is so ordered.

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

Original Proceeding – Mandamus

Arthur Willis Foley, pro se, Live Oak, Florida,

     for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

                                 -5-