Court Opinion

ID: 9917059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 16:03:37.385914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:55:09.223840
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Florida
                            ____________

                         No. SC2023-0980
                           ____________

                        TODD E. WATSON,
                           Petitioner,

                                 vs.

                     SHEVAUN HARRIS, etc.,
                         Respondents.

                         January 11, 2024

PER CURIAM.

     Todd E. Watson, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se

petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 On September 26, 2023, we

denied the instant petition and expressly retained jurisdiction to

pursue possible sanctions against Petitioner. Watson v. Harris, No.

SC2023-0980, 2023 WL 6236809 (Fla. Sept. 26, 2023); see Fla. R.

App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find that

Petitioner has failed to show cause why he should not be barred,

and we sanction him as set forth below.

     1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
     Petitioner was convicted in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in

and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, case number

132017CF0187890001XX of two counts of threats/extortion and

five counts of stalking and sentenced to 364 days imprisonment

followed by a five-year probationary period. Since being sentenced

in 2019, Petitioner has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious filing of

meritless pro se requests for relief related to case number

132017CF0187890001XX.

     Including the petition in the instant case, Petitioner has filed

eight pro se petitions with this Court. The Court has never granted

Petitioner the relief sought in any of his filings here; each of the

petitions was dismissed, denied, or transferred. His petition in this

case is no exception. Petitioner argued that the Eleventh Judicial

Circuit lacked jurisdiction to accept his plea because the executive

order transferring jurisdiction had expired. On September 26,

2023, we denied the instant petition as repetitive pursuant to Topps

v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004), as Petitioner had previously

raised this exact claim in a prior habeas petition filed with the

Court. See Watson v. Harris, No. SC2023-0980, 2023 WL 6236809

                                  -2-
(Fla. Sept. 26, 2023) (citing Watson v. Reyes, No. SC2023-0510,

2023 WL 4094719 (Fla. June 21, 2023)).

     In response to this Court’s show cause order, Petitioner again

argued that the Eleventh Judicial Circuit lacked jurisdiction to

accept his plea because the executive order transferring jurisdiction

had expired.

     Upon consideration of Petitioner’s response, we find that he

has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Therefore, based on Petitioner’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, Petitioner will continue to burden the Court’s resources. We

further conclude that Petitioner’s habeas petition filed in this case

                                  -3-
is a frivolous proceeding brought before the Court by a state

prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2023).

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

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Todd E.

Watson that are related to case number 132017CF0187890001XX,

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

Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Petitioner’s

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

to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2023), to forward a copy of

this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or

facility in which Petitioner 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,
FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus

Todd E. Watson, pro se, Chattahoochee, Florida,

     for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondents

                                  -4-