Opinion
No. SC08-1865.
December 11, 2008.
The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied as successive. See Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 1975) (declaring that once a petitioner seeks relief in a particular court by means of a petition for extraordinary writ, he has picked his forum and is not entitled to a second or third opportunity for the same relief by the same writ in a different court).
The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against petitioner. See generally Fla.R.App.P. 9.410 (sanctions).
Since 1999, Jonathan R. Steele has initiated twenty-six other cases in this Court involving his conviction or sentence entered by Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida, in No. CR96-CF-3036. See Steele v. State, No. SC08-1790 (Fla. 2008) (notice to invoke discretionary review still pending); Steele v. State, 974 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2008) (table) (notice to invoke dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, 966 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2007) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed as moot); Steele v. McDonough, 961 So. 2d 934 Fla. 2007 (table) (mandamus petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, 961 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2007) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, SC05-2090 (Fla. Nov. 29, 2005) (mandamus petition transferred to Ninth Judicial Circuit); Steele v. State, 917 So. 2d 195 Fla. 2005 (table) (mandamus petition denied); Steele v. State, 915 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2005) (table) (all writs petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, 914 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 2005) (table) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. Crosby, No. SC05-681 (Fla. Apr. 25, 2005) (transferred to Fifth DCA); Steele v. State, 901 So. 2d 120 Fla. 2005 (table) (prohibition petition dismissed); Steele v. Crosby, No. SC05-267 (Fla. Mar. 7, 2005) (habeas corpus petition transferred to Ninth Judicial Circuit); Steele v. State, 862 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2003) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed as premature); Steele v. State, No. SC02-2768 (Fla. Jul. 25, 2003) (all writs petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, No. SC03-1215 (Fla. Jul. 24, 2003) (notice to invoke dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. Hon. Lydia Gardner, No. SC02-1743 (Fla. May 29, 2003) (notice to invoke dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, No. SC02-2453 (Fla. Jan. 27, 2003) (mandamus petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, 835 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2002) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, No. SC02-1800 (Fla. Sep. 25, 2002) (transferred to Fifth DCA); Steel v. State, No. SC02-1612 (Fla. Sep. 20, 2002) (all writs petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. Moore, No. SC01-565 (Fla. Sep. 4, 2001) (habeas corpus petition dismissed in part, transferred in part); Steele v. Beary, No. SC00-2054 (Fla. Jan. 19, 2001) (all writs petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. Beary, No. SC00-2080 (Fla. Oct. 16, 2000) (notice to invoke dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. State, No. 93, 537 (Fla. Mar. 28, 2000) (notice to invoke voluntarily dismissed); Steele v. State, No. SC00-34 (Fla. Jan. 14, 2000) (notice to invoke dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Steele v. Sentinel Commc'ns, No. 95,321 (Fla. Jun. 25, 1999) (petition denied on the merits).
This Court has chosen to sanction pro se petitioners who have abused the judicial process and otherwise misused this Court's limited judicial resources by filing frivolous or otherwise nonmeritorious filings related to their convictions and sentences. Such petitioners have been barred from initiating further proceedings in this Court, related to their convictions and sentences, unless their pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief were filed under the signature of a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See, e.g., Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008); Tate v. McNeil, 983 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2008); Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998).
It appearing that Steele has abused the judicial process by filing numerous pro se filings in this Court that are either meritless or not appropriate for this Court's review, the Court now takes action. Therefore, Jonathan R. Steele is hereby directed to show cause on or before December 29, 2008, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief related to his conviction or sentence in State v. Steele, Case No. CR96-CF-3036, unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.