Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 25, 2018.
________________
No. 3D17-2009
Lower Tribunal Nos. 07-17576A & 17-3981
________________
Titus Laqual Henley,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina
Miranda, Judge.
Titus Laqual Henley, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ROTHENBERG, C.J.
On the motion to correct opinion filed by the Public Defender’s Office, we
grant the motion, withdraw this Court’s opinion dated March 21, 2018, and issue
this opinion in its stead.
In Case Nos. 3D15-1572 and 3D15-925, this Court ordered the defendant,
Titus Laqual Henley, to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing
with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings
related to lower tribunal numbers 07-17576A and 09-16471A. On March 30,
2016, following the defendant’s response to the order to show cause, this Court
ordered the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse further filings
related to these lower tribunal cases unless the filings have been reviewed and
signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good
standing. Henley v. State, 201 So. 3d 665, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), review
dismissed, No. SC16-1155 (Fla. July 1, 2016), and review dismissed, No. SC16-
1344 (Fla. July 27, 2016). This Court also warned the defendant as follows: “Any
further and unauthorized pro se filings by Henley will subject him to sanctions,
including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of
Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant to section
944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.” Id.
Less than six months later, on August 29, 2017, the defendant filed a
“Notice of Appeal and or Motion for Appointment of Counsel to File a Notice of
2
Appeal to the Second Corrected Order of Revocation of Probation,” referencing
lower tribunal case numbers 17-3981 and 07-17576A. Thereafter, this Court
ordered the defendant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed where
(1) he was prohibited from filing any pro se pleading related to lower tribunal case
number 07-17576A, and (2) the charges in lower tribunal case number 17-3981
had been nolle prossed.
In his response, the defendant asserted that he was appealing an order
revoking his probation in lower tribunal case number 07-17576A; the trial court’s
revocation order states that the defendant has the right to the assistance of counsel
in taking an appeal; and, as an indigent defendant, he has a constitutional right to
the appointment of appellate counsel. The defendant also asserted that, although
the State nolled prossed the charges in lower tribunal case number 17-3981, prior
to doing so, the trial court entered orders in case number 17-3981 that “ultimately
affected the decision” in lower tribunal case number 07-17576A.
In its response to the defendant’s response to this Court’s order to show
cause, the State asserted that the defendant’s pro se pleading should be dismissed
pursuant to this Court’s March 30, 2016 order prohibiting the defendant from filing
any further pro se pleadings. The State further asserted that the defendant’s claim
that the nolle prossed charges in case number 17-3981 were a basis for an order of
violation in case number 07-17576A is refuted by record.
3
Following the State’s response, on January 16, 2018, this Court ordered the
Office of the Public Defender to examine the records in lower tribunal case
numbers 07-17576A and 09-16471A and to determine whether the defendant was
found in violation of his probation in lower case number 07-17576A on September
1, 2017.
In his response to this Court’s January 16, 2018 order, the Assistant Public
Defender stated that his review of the records in lower tribunal cases 07-17576A
and 09-16471A reflects that no violation of probation hearing has been held in case
number 07-17576A since June 2010, which hearing resulted in the revocation of
the defendant’s probation and the imposition of a new split sentence including
prison time and probation. The Assistant Public Defender also noted that the
docket indicates that no hearing of any kind was conducted on September 1, 2017,
but that an affidavit of violation of probation is pending in case number 07-
17576A.
Based on the above, we conclude that the defendant has not only violated
this Court’s March 30, 2016 order prohibiting him from submitting any further
unauthorized pro se filing related to lower tribunal case number 07-17576A, but
has also provided inaccurate information to this Court, resulting in the waste of
judicial resources. Accordingly, we dismiss the defendant’s pro se appeal filed on
August 29, 2017. Further, we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a copy of
4
this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections to consider disciplinary
action against the defendant pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.
Dismissed.
5