Arthur Willis Foley v. State of Florida ( 2023 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC2022-1577
____________
ARTHUR WILLIS FOLEY,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
May 18, 2023
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Willis Foley, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se
petition for writ of mandamus with this Court challenging his
Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentence. 1 We dismissed the
petition, retained jurisdiction, and directed Foley to show cause
why he should not be sanctioned for his repeated misuse of our
limited resources. Foley v. State, No. SC2022-1577, 2023 WL
1795173 (Fla. Feb. 7, 2023); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions;
Court’s Motion). Foley responded to our show cause order. We now
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const.
find that Foley has failed to show cause why he should not be
barred, and we sanction him as set forth below.
Foley was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, of robbery with a
weapon and trafficking in stolen property (case number
131999CF0376080001XX). He was sentenced to life in prison as a
Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR). The Third District Court of
Appeal affirmed on direct appeal Petitioner’s convictions and his
PRR sentence on the robbery with a weapon count. Foley v. State,
804 So. 2d 556, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). However, the Third
District reversed Foley’s PRR sentence on the trafficking in stolen
property count and remanded the case with instructions to impose
a “guideline sentence.” Id. at 557.
Since 2003, Foley has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious
filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court related to
his convictions and sentences. Including the petition in this case,
Foley has filed nineteen pro se petitions with this Court. 2 The
2. See Foley v. State, No. SC2022-1577, 2023 WL 1795173(Fla. Feb. 7, 2023).
-2-
Court has never granted Foley the relief sought in any of his filings
here; each of the petitions was dismissed or denied. His petition in
this case is no exception. Foley challenged the legality of his PRR
sentence and requested that the Court issue a writ of mandamus
directing the circuit court to issue an order appointing a public
defender to file a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(a) on his behalf because he has been pro se barred in the
circuit court. Because we “will generally not consider the repetitive
petitions of persons who have abused the judicial processes of the
lower courts such that they have been barred from filing certain
actions there,” we dismissed the instant petition under Pettway v.
State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000), and directed Foley to show
cause why he should not be barred from filing any further pro se
requests for relief in this Court.
Foley filed a response to the show cause order in which he
continues to challenge his PRR sentence and assert that being pro
se barred does not prohibit a reviewing court from appointing him
counsel. In his response, he failed to express any remorse for his
repeated misuse of this Court’s limited resources nor state that he
would abstain from further frivolous filings in this Court. Upon
-3-
consideration of Foley’s response, we find that he has failed to show
cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, based on
Foley’s extensive history of filing pro se petitions and requests for
relief that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s
review, we now 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, Foley will continue to burden the
Court’s resources. We further conclude that Foley’s mandamus
petition filed in this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before
the Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2022).
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by
Arthur Willis Foley that are related to case number
131999CF0376080001XX, unless such filings are signed by a
member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Furthermore, because
we have found Foley’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of
-4-
this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), to forward a copy of this
opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or
facility in which Foley is incarcerated.
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by
this Court.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS,
and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Mandamus
Arthur Willis Foley, pro se, Live Oak, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-5-