Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 11, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D13-3077
Lower Tribunal No. 97-26815
________________
Cedric Jefferson, a/k/a/ David Pierre,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Monica Gordo,
Judge.
Cedric Jefferson, a/k/a David Pierre, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Martinez Biswas, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before WELLS, SUAREZ, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
SUAREZ, J.
Cedric Jefferson, a/k/a David Pierre (“Jefferson”), appeals from the trial
court’s orders denying his motion to correct sentence and prohibiting him from
filing any further post-conviction motions. We affirm.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On May 28, 1998, in case number F97-26815, Jefferson was found guilty
after a jury trial on the charge possession of a firearm by a felon and was thereafter
sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison. On May 9, 1999, in case number F96-
41742B, Jefferson was found guilty of burglary of an occupied dwelling and
assault without a firearm. He was thereafter sentenced to life in prison as a
habitual offender.
Since that time, Jefferson has filed an overwhelming number of pro se
motions challenging his convictions and sentences, all of which were denied. We
now order Jefferson to show good cause within forty-five days from the date of
this opinion why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se proceedings
in this Court concerning his convictions and sentences in the above-cited cases.
I. FACTS
On October 13, 2013 the trial court issued Jefferson an Order to Show Cause
within thirty (30) days why he should not be barred from filing pro se motions.
Jefferson failed to show cause after which the trial court issued an Order
prohibiting Jefferson from filing further pro se pleadings, motions, or petitions.
Jefferson has filed at least seven motions for relief pursuant to Florida Rule
of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied each of those motions and this
Court affirmed in each case. Jefferson has also filed at least six motions to Correct
2
Illegal Sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The trial
court likewise denied those motions and this Court affirmed each appeal of such
motions. Jefferson has also sought a writ of habeas corpus and to disqualify a trial
judge. Those petitions were denied as well and those denials were affirmed on
appeal.
Jefferson’s appeals to this Court as to case number F96-41742 include:
Jefferson v. State, 937 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
Pierre v. State, 961 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
Pierre v. State, 980 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
Jefferson v. State, 11 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
Jefferson v. State, 28 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
Jefferson v. McNeil, 37 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
Jefferson v. State, 2011 WL 666726 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
Jefferson v. State, 70 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
Mathew v. State, 98 So. 3d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
Mathew v. State, 105 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
Jefferson v. State, 124 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
Jefferson’s appeals to this Court as to case number F97-26815 include:
Pierre v. State, 838 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
Pierre v. State, 963 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
Jefferson v. State, 36 So. 3d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
Jefferson v. State, 2011 WL 666726 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
Jefferson v. State, 86 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
Pierre v. State, 105 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
In addition, Jefferson has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the
Florida Supreme Court. See Jefferson v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA
2011).
3
II. ANALYSIS
We recognize that incarcerated persons must be provided with a full panoply
of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their
incarceration. State v. Spence, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). On the other hand,
successive motions which have been heard, considered, rejected and then raised
again, are an abuse of process. Conception v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069, 1072 (Fla.
3d DCA 2006).
This Court has the inherent authority and duty to limit abuses of the judicial
process by pro se litigants. Golden v. Buss, 60 So. 3d 461, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA
2011). This is particularly true in this case, where over the course of
approximately fourteen years, Jefferson has filed more than a dozen motions, each
of which has been rejected by the trial court and this Court. The record plainly
reflects that Jefferson has filed an overwhelming number of appeals and that he has
caused this Court to expend precious and finite resources which could otherwise be
devoted to cases raising legitimate claims. Hendrick v. State, 6 So. 3d 688, 691
(Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“A legitimate claim that may merit relief is more likely to be
overlooked if buried within a forest of frivolous claims.”). As such, Jefferson’s
actions now require the issuance of this Order.
4
III. CONCLUSION
We therefore order Jefferson to show good cause within forty-five days from
the date of this opinion why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se
pleadings in this Court concerning his convictions and sentences imposed in case
numbers: F96-41741 and F97-26815.
5