Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 15, 2019.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-672
Lower Tribunal No. 98-12208C
________________
Shamond Byrd,
Petitioner,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction— Mandamus.
Shamond Byrd, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant
Attorney General, for respondent.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Shamond Byrd petitions this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to
compel the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court to rule on his February 22, 2019
“Motion to Clarify and Request for Administrative Order.” For the reasons
described below, we deny the petition and issue an order to show cause.
In February 2000, in lower tribunal case number F98-12208C, a jury
convicted Byrd of: (i) second degree murder with a firearm (with a sentence of life
in prison); (ii) aggravated battery with a firearm (with a sentence of fifteen years in
prison); and (iii) carrying a concealed firearm (with a sentence of five years in
prison). The sentences were to run concurrently. This Court affirmed the judgment
in Byrd v. State,
788 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (table).
Byrd filed numerous motions and petitions for post-conviction relief, none
of which were successful in altering his sentence.1 In December of 2011, Byrd
filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion in the circuit court. On
April 13, 2012, after a March 7, 2012 order to show cause, the trial court entered
an order prohibiting Byrd from filing further pro se pleadings, motions or petitions
in the circuit court related to case number F98-12208C.
1 Byrd v. State,
167 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Byrd v. State,
95 So. 3d 235
(Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (table); Byrd v. State,
73 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
(table); Byrd v. State,
75 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (dismissing petition as
moot); Byrd v. State,
63 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (table); Byrd v. State,
49
So. 3d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (table); Byrd v. State,
46 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2010) (table); Byrd v. State,
22 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (table); Byrd
v. State,
910 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Byrd v. State,
841 So. 2d 502 (Fla.
3d DCA 2003); Byrd v. State,
790 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (table).
2
In February 2015, Byrd petitioned this Court to accept a belated appeal of
the trial court’s sanction order of April 13, 2012. This Court granted the belated
appeal and, on April 7, 2015, Byrd filed a notice of appeal in this Court (case
number 3D15-803). In his initial brief, Byrd: (i) maintained that his motion
prompting the circuit court’s sanction order was not frivolous and he did not
deserve sanction; and (ii) reiterated his argument from his initial rule 3.800 motion
that the trial court’s upward departure in determining his sentences was illegal.
This Court addressed Byrd’s substantive argument in an affirmance in Byrd v.
State,
167 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).2
Byrd then filed his February 22, 2019 motion in the circuit court, which is
the subject of his mandamus petition in this case. It appears from the record that
the trial court has not addressed – and perhaps will not address – Byrd’s motion in
light of its April 13, 2012 sanction order prohibiting this type of pro se filing.
Given the clear-cut circumstances of this case, Byrd is not entitled to
mandamus relief. Huffman v. State,
813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (holding that a
petitioner for a writ of mandamus “has no right to continue to file procedurally
barred . . . petitions” and, therefore, “is not entitled to mandamus relief as a means
to override the lower courts’ sanction orders”). We deny Byrd’s petition.
2This opinion did not specifically address the circuit court’s sanction order beyond
affirming the order, which perhaps inspired Byrd to file the petition in the instant
case.
3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Byrd is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days of the date of
this opinion, as to why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se
appeals, petitions, motions or other pleadings related to his convictions in case
number F98-12208C.
If Byrd does not demonstrate good cause, we will direct the Clerk of this
Court not to accept any such filings unless they have been reviewed by, and bear
the signature of, a licensed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar.
Additionally, and absent a showing of good cause, any further and
unauthorized filings by Byrd will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including
the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of
Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of
gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018).
Petition denied; order to show cause issued.
4
