NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JODY MAURICE CRUM, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D17-1272
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed January 4, 2019.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.
9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk
County; John K. Stargel, Judge.
Jody Crum, pro se.
KELLY, Judge.
Jody Crum, pro se, appeals from the summary denial of his second
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We affirm without comment the order
denying Crum's motion. Because in the course of reviewing this appeal we have
determined that Crum has knowingly and recklessly brought false information and
evidence before this court, we write to set forth our findings and to refer this matter to
the Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the
Department. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2017).1
Crum's appearances in this court began after the circuit court in Polk
County revoked his probation. Crum entered a plea after unsuccessfully challenging
the court's jurisdiction to revoke his probation; however, he reserved his right to raise
the issue of the court's jurisdiction on appeal. We affirmed the revocation, and since
then, Crum has filed three postconviction proceedings in this court—two appeals and a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus—all of which continue to challenge the circuit court's
jurisdiction to revoke his probation.2 He filed, under oath, pro se briefs in both appeals,
and he also filed his habeas petition pro se and under oath. In each of these
1Section 944.279(1) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
(1) At any time, and upon its own motion or on
motion of a party, a court may conduct an inquiry into
whether any action or appeal brought by a prisoner was
brought in good faith. A prisoner who is found by a court to
have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim,
proceeding, or appeal in any court of this state or in any
federal court, . . . or who knowingly or with reckless
disregard for the truth brought false information or evidence
before the court, is subject to disciplinary procedures
pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections. The
court shall issue a written finding and direct that a certified
copy be forwarded to the appropriate institution or facility for
disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the
department as provided in s. 944.09.
2Incase number 2D15-4625, Crum appealed the denial of his first rule
3.850 motion in Polk County trial court case number 2005-CF-000723-01. He filed the
present appeal to challenge the denial of his second rule 3.850 motion in the same trial
court case. Shortly after filing this appeal, he also filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in this court, case number 2D17-2220, in which he again challenged the denial
of his second rule 3.850 motion.
-2-
postconviction proceedings, Crum has relied on what he claims is a copy of a judgment
and sentence entered against him in an unrelated case from Martin County.
In the facts section of his sworn pro se brief Crum states that in Martin
County he "was sentenced to five years Florida State Prison, to run concurrent with any
active sentence (see Exhibit D, Martin County Sentencing Order), and with the
sentencing judge having foreknowledge of the Appellant serving active probation
sentences in other jurisdictions." Neither Exhibit D, nor any of the other exhibits
referenced in the brief, are actually appended to the brief. However, this court has
copies of these exhibits because Crum also filed them as attachments to his sworn pro
se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in case number 2D17-2220 and to his sworn brief
in case number 2D15-4625. In this appeal and in the other proceedings, Crum has
relied on the purported copy of the Martin County sentencing order to support his claim
that his Martin County sentence was ordered to run concurrent with any active
sentence.
On its face, the order supports Crum's assertion. However, in his sworn
brief and in his sworn rule 3.850 motion, Crum makes conflicting assertions regarding
the nature of his Martin County sentence. Further, the record in his direct appeal is
inconsistent with the claim that his Martin County sentence was made concurrent with
any active sentence. Because of the incongruities, we questioned the legitimacy of the
document Crum had filed.
We ordered the State to file in this court a copy of the Martin County
sentencing order. The copy of the order the State filed lacks checkmarks that appear
on the copy Crum filed in this court, and it is those checkmarks that indicate his
-3-
sentence is to be concurrent with any active sentence. The State also filed Crum's
Martin County plea agreement as well as the order denying the rule 3.800(a) motion he
filed in the Martin County case. These documents further contradict Crum's assertion
that his Martin County sentence was made concurrent with any active sentence and
they show that Crum was well aware of that fact.
We ordered Crum to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for
knowingly or recklessly bringing false evidence or information before this court and why,
pursuant to section 944.279(1), a certified copy of this court's findings should not be
forwarded to the Department of Corrections for the institution of disciplinary procedures
pursuant to the rules of the Department as provided in section 944.09. Crum responded
to our order to show cause. Although his response is vague, the gist of it is that he
relies on prison law clerks to help with his "court papers," and he simply does what they
tell him. We find Crum's attempt to avoid responsibility unavailing. See Jones v. State,
18 So. 3d 551, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) ("Given Jones personally swore that the
information contained in his petition was true and correct and that the court's reliance on
that representation resulted in a substantial expenditure of the court's resources . . . we
reject petitioner's attempt to absolve himself of responsibility for his actions."); Allen v.
State, 746 So. 2d 1247, 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (rejecting the petitioner's attempt to
blame inaccuracies on an "allegedly ill-trained and unscrupulous inmate law clerk" who
assisted him given that the petitioner personally swore the information in his petition
was true and correct).
Accordingly, we hereby find that Crum either knowingly or recklessly
brought false information and evidence before this court in this proceeding, as well as in
-4-
case numbers 2D17-2220 and 2D15-4625, and in accordance with section 944.279(1),
we direct the clerk of this court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Florida
Department of Corrections' institution or facility where Crum is incarcerated for
institution of disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department as provided
for in section 944.09.
Affirmed; certified opinion forwarded to Crum and the Department of
Corrections.
BLACK, J., Concurs.
NORTHCUTT, J., Dissents.
-5-
