Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 16, 2016.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-1188
Lower Tribunal No. 00-15843
________________
Taronn Kenard Brown,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the
Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diane V. Ward, Judge.
Taronn Kenard Brown, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SHEPHERD, LAGOA and EMAS, JJ.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SHEPHERD, J.
On May 19, 2016, Taronn Kenard Brown filed an appeal from the trial
court’s March 4, 2016, Order Denying Defendant’s Successive Motion for
Postconviction Relief and Order Prohibiting Defendant from Filing Any Further
Pro Se Proceedings. On September 12, 2016, we dismissed the appeal as
duplicative of a prior appeal, and we ordered Mr. Brown to show cause why this
court should not prohibit him from submitting further pro se appeals, petition or
motions regarding lower tribunal case number F00-15843. Mr. Brown did not
comply with this order, and, after careful review of the record and in consideration
of the prior appeals by Mr. Brown, we are compelled to prohibit Mr. Brown from
filing any additional pro se appeals, petitions or motions that concern his
conviction and sentence in Case No. F00-15843, unless such pleadings are signed
by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
Since his conviction of second degree murder in Case No. 00-15843, Mr.
Brown has filed numerous motions and appeals, many raising claims of newly
discovered evidence, which have been denied, including in this court case numbers
3D04-673, 3D06-539, 3D06-701, 3D06-703, 3D06-2592, 3D09-1697, 3D09-1906,
3D10-1843, 3D14-1470, 3D14-2837, 3D15-1237, and 3D16-865. As we have
stated before, although “ʻincarcerated persons have a full panoply of procedural
vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarcerations,’ . . .
frivolous post conviction motions and petitions are not among an incarcerated
2
person’s procedural vehicles.” Dawson v. State, 121 So. 3d 63, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA
2013) (quoting Edwards v. State, 96 So. 3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)).
“The right to proceed pro se will be forfeited where a party abuses the judicial
process by continued filing of ‘successive motions which have been heard,
considered, rejected and then raised again.’” Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499, 501
(Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2006)). We conclude Mr. Brown has forfeited his right to further pro se
filings.
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to
refuse to accept for filing in this court any further appeals, petitions or motions
relating to Mr. Brown’s conviction and sentence in Case No. F00-15843, unless
they are filed by a Florida Bar member in good standing.
3