Opinion
1180738
08-09-2019
EX PARTE Mitchell MARBURY (In re: Mitchell Marbury v. State of Alabama)
Mitchell Marbury, petitioner, pro se. Submitted on petitioner's brief only.
Mitchell Marbury, petitioner, pro se.
Submitted on petitioner's brief only.
SELLERS, Justice.
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., concurs specially.
Wise, J., recuses herself.
SELLERS, Justice (concurring specially).
The petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Mitchell Marbury is due to be denied without an opinion. I write specially to voice my agreement with the following footnote in the Court of Criminal Appeals' unpublished memorandum affirming the circuit court's judgment, Marbury v. State, 292 So. 3d 1089 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019)(table):
"We note that allowing Marbury to file multiple petitions for postconviction relief in which his claims are insufficiently pleaded, precluded, or without merit wastes scarce judicial resources. Therefore, we encourage the circuit court to consider adopting sanctions like those proposed in Peoples v. State, 531 So. 2d 323 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988), and Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986), to prevent future frivolous litigation on the part of Marbury and other similarly situated inmates. See Ex parte Thompson, 38 So. 3d 119 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)."
Trial courts, as the gatekeepers of postconviction relief, should carefully consider adopting appropriate measures to prevent the repeated filing of frivolous petitions for postconviction relief that, even if viewed in a light most favorable to the petitioner, have no chance of success. At least eight postconviction petitions filed by this petitioner have needlessly burdened our judicial system from the trial court to the Court of Criminal Appeals and now the Alabama Supreme Court. I reiterate, this case serves as an example of the type of case in which trial courts throughout Alabama should adopt sanctions against "frequent filers" to prevent frivolous filings that serve only to needlessly increase the workload of courts that have significant and more meritorious cases to consider.