Arsenio Stewart v. Ricky D. Dixon, etc. ( 2022 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC22-654
____________
ARSENIO STEWART,
Petitioner,
vs.
RICKY D. DIXON, etc.,
Respondent.
December 1, 2022
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on the petition of Arsenio Stewart
for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, §
3(b)(9), Fla. Const. By order dated August 10, 2022, we dismissed
Stewart’s petition as unauthorized pursuant to Baker v. State, 878
So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). Stewart v. Dixon, No. SC22-654, 2022 WL
3221953 (Fla. Aug. 10, 2022). Concurrent with the dismissal of the
petition, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible
sanctions against Stewart. Id.; see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a)
(Sanctions; Court’s Motion).
Stewart was convicted in the Seventh Judicial Circuit (Putnam
County) on one count of gun possession by a convicted felon (case
number 542013CF000126CFAXMX). He was sentenced to fifteen
years’ imprisonment on December 3, 2013. The Fifth District Court
of Appeal per curiam affirmed the judgment and sentence on July
7, 2015. Stewart v. State, 171 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
(table).
Since 2016, Stewart has filed seven petitions or notices related
to his conviction and sentence in the above-noted circuit court case.
We have never granted the relief sought in any of Stewart’s filings,
which have all been dismissed or transferred by the Court. Four of
these pleadings have raised the exact same claim for relief found in
the instant habeas petition, in which Stewart argued that his
fifteen-year sentence is inconsistent with the terms of his plea
agreement. We dismissed the petition as unauthorized and directed
Stewart to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any
further requests for relief and referred to the Department of
Corrections for possible disciplinary action pursuant to section
944.279, Florida Statutes (2022).
-2-
Stewart filed a response to the Court’s order in which he
argues that sanctions would be improper because the merits of his
claim have not been addressed. He further asserts that rather than
prohibiting him from further pro se filings, the Court should grant
relief from his allegedly illegal sentence.
Upon consideration of Stewart’s response, we find that his
arguments are without merit and that he has failed to show cause
why sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, based on
Stewart’s extensive history of filing pro se petitions and requests for
relief that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s
review, we 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, Stewart will continue to burden the
Court’s resources. We further conclude that Stewart’s habeas
petition filed in this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before
the Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2022).
-3-
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Arsenio
Stewart that are related to case number 542013CF000126CFAXMX,
unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The
Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Stewart’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 Stewart is incarcerated.
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by
this Court.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, COURIEL,
GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus
Arsenio Stewart, pro se, Raiford, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-4-